FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-30-2001, 03:54 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TheCandle:
Nomad

As an outsider reading with interest, the most startling think I have noticed among your and rodahi's posts are:
(1) rodahi claims that Kim is unknown, and the only one of many papyrologists to claim what he does.
(2) He has repeatedly asked you why you believe Kim's claims, rather than what appears to be many other opinions to the contrary.
(3) You refuse to respond to his questions as to why you believe Kim.

Let us assume that all these experts offer only *opinions*. Why would anyone believe a complete unknown in the face of many authorities to the contrary?

I am forced to conclude that you believe him, because not to do so would destroy your faith.

Could you please elaborate on why you do not respond?
</font>
Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Ron

 
Old 04-30-2001, 03:54 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TheCandle:

As an outsider reading with interest, the most startling think I have noticed among your and rodahi's posts are:
(1) rodahi claims that Kim is unknown, and the only one of many papyrologists to claim what he does.</font>
How would this make Kim wrong in your view?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(2) He has repeatedly asked you why you believe Kim's claims, rather than what appears to be many other opinions to the contrary.</font>
Because thus far the only refutation of Kim offered on these boards was the argument put forward regarding the use of nomina sacra in P46. I have already dealt with this objection by quoting from Colin Roberts, and demonstrated that the argument is hopelessly circular.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(3) You refuse to respond to his questions as to why you believe Kim.</font>
I have consistently asked to see why Kim is rejected. I am seriously interested in this point, and the longer my requests go unanswered the more suspicious I have become. Are not criticisms offered because they are so lame that they cannot be defended? Or is it just that no one knows what those criticisms happen to be? If the latter is the case, I place little faith in mere appeals to authority, and expect the critics to do much better than this.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Let us assume that all these experts offer only *opinions*. Why would anyone believe a complete unknown in the face of many authorities to the contrary?</font>
Why would the status of the expert be important? Is not the truth the truth regardless of the source? If Kim is easily rebutted, rebut him. I only ask to see the arguments, and wonder at why no one will offer them.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am forced to conclude that you believe him, because not to do so would destroy your faith.</font>
How unfortunate. I believed in God long before I had ever heard of P46 or Kim. You are free to form whatever opinion of me you wish however.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Could you please elaborate on why you do not respond?</font>
As soon as I have something to respond to, I will.

Nomad
 
Old 04-30-2001, 04:02 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TheCandle:
Nomad

As an outsider reading with interest, the most startling think I have noticed among your and rodahi's posts are:
(1) rodahi claims that Kim is unknown, and the only one of many papyrologists to claim what he does.
(2) He has repeatedly asked you why you believe Kim's claims, rather than what appears to be many other opinions to the contrary.
(3) You refuse to respond to his questions as to why you believe Kim.

Let us assume that all these experts offer only *opinions*. Why would anyone believe a complete unknown in the face of many authorities to the contrary?

I am forced to conclude that you believe him, because not to do so would destroy your faith.

Could you please elaborate on why you do not respond?
</font>
Since chiming in seems to be more common, I'll add my two cents worth. Nomad has not only referred to Kim, he has articulated Kim's arguments. Which, and if I'm wrong Nomad can correct me, is the reason he finds Kim persuasive.

What more is he supposed to do? Rodahi has chosen to rely on scholarly consensus, without articulating the reasons for that consensus. That is his perogative, and in my opinion, is a reasonable position to take.

It is an impasse. Nomad has articulated Kim's arguments and indicated that the finds them to be persuasive. Rodahi doesn't consider the arguments worth responding to in a substantive manner because of a contrary scholarly consensus.

 
Old 04-30-2001, 04:04 PM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The point is, Nomad, that you have consistently given the appearance of praising anyone who agrees with you, and ignoring anyone who doesn't. You have also appealed to scholarly consensus when it supports you, but appealed to the "independent truth" when scholarly consensus doesn't agree with you. You give the appearance of someone interested only in the "scientific" confirmation of your beliefs, not someone interested in using science to figure out what to believe.

People here are questioning your scientific integrity, not the particular accuracy of Kim's work.
 
Old 04-30-2001, 04:23 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SingleDad:
The point is, Nomad, that you have consistently given the appearance of praising anyone who agrees with you, and ignoring anyone who doesn't. You have also appealed to scholarly consensus when it supports you, but appealed to the "independent truth" when scholarly consensus doesn't agree with you. You give the appearance of someone interested only in the "scientific" confirmation of your beliefs, not someone interested in using science to figure out what to believe.

People here are questioning your scientific integrity, not the particular accuracy of Kim's work.
</font>
Hello again SD

If you can point to a single instance where I have appealed to authority without offering my reasons and arguments for why I find those arguments convincing, then please show me.

In the meantime, I am amazed at how easily "freethinkers" here have continued to allow rodahi's clear appeal to authority to pass, knowing full well that rodahi does not know why the scholarly concensus is against Kim. Personally, I have no vested interest in who is right. I want to know why others think Kim is wrong. If the best anyone can offer is that scholars say that he is wrong, so be it, but that is not my understanding of how critical thinking works around here.

If I am mistaken, then so be it, and I will make note of it for future discussions.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 30, 2001).]
 
Old 04-30-2001, 04:51 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Hello again SD

If you can point to a single instance where I have appealed to authority without offering my reasons and arguments for why I find those arguments convincing, then please show me.

In the meantime, I am amazed at how easily "freethinkers" here have continued to allow rodahi's clear appeal to authority to pass, knowing full well that rodahi does not know why the scholarly concensus is against Kim.


Have you actually read "What is P46?" I offered a rebuttal of some of Kim's major points. That is NOT an appeal to anyone's authority. I will go on record as challenging you to read what Kim actually wrote and what I said about it.

Nomad: Personally, I have no vested interest in who is right.

Yeah, right.

Nomad: I want to know why others think Kim is wrong. If the best anyone can offer is that scholars say that he is wrong, so be it, but that is not my understanding of how critical thinking works around here.

Read "What is P46?" and respond to my rebuttal of some of Kim's points.

Nomad: If I am mistaken, then so be it, and I will make note of it for future discussions.

You are mistaken.

rodahi

 
Old 04-30-2001, 04:58 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
Since chiming in seems to be more common, I'll add my two cents worth. Nomad has not only referred to Kim, he has articulated Kim's arguments. Which, and if I'm wrong Nomad can correct me, is the reason he finds Kim persuasive.

I appreciate your comments, Layman, but I don't think Nomad has "articulated Kim's arguments." I think he has quoted a portion of Daniel Wallace's analysis of Kim's article. I want Nomad to read Kim's article, quote him, and debate Kim's conclusions.

rodahi
 
Old 04-30-2001, 09:39 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Since I have no interest in doing this on two threads, and the question is specifically regarding the dating of P46, I have moved it to this thread. Rodahi has offered some arguments for the traditional c. 200AD dating of this MSS.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

How is P46 dated? Among other considerations, the size and type of script or writing helps experts date this MS. Generally, paleographers estimate the time period when ancient documents were written based on the various characteristics of the scribe’s particular script. The script of each MS is compared to that of other MSS whose dates are known or approximated. This enables the experts to give a dating that is accurate to within about 25-50 years. (Paleography is more subjective than objective and more of an art than a science.) All scholars, to my knowledge, date this ancient MS to around 200 CE. Why is this? F. G. Kenyon, U. Wilcken, Colin H. Roberts, T. C. Skeat, H. A. Sanders, M. W. Haslam, A. Debrunner, P. W. Skehan, F. Danand, and other paleographers, have compared the script characteristics of P46 with those of other MSS that date to the first centuries of our era. Their unanimous conclusion, based on expert paleographic analysis, is that P46 dates to circa 200 CE.</font>
As rodahi has noted, one of the most important methods of dating a papyrus is by using other similarily dated MSS and testing both the writing style's, grammar, and the like, and establishing a probable date range. The problem, of course, is that if the assumptions for the dates of all of the known papyri from a given period in time are wrong, then all other papyri dated using the same methods will also be incorrectly dated.

Allow me to offer an example:

Pretend that at some very distant point in the future (say 2000 years from now), they start finding remnants of our society, including our cars. Let's say that they find what they think is a 57 Chev. After that, it stands to reason that any other car that they find that looks the same as their 57 Chev will also be called a 57 Chev. The problem is obvious. What if it wasn't a 57 Chev, but rather, a 49 Chev? ALL of the vehicles that look the same will be incorrectly dated, and heaven help the poor sap that dares to suggest that maybe they got all the dates wrong because the underlying assumptions that dated the FIRST vehicle to 1957 was wrong.

In any event, the real problem becomes the basic assumptions of the papyrologist, and a judgement on just how solid those assumptions really are. Let's take a look.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It should be noted that a person known only as Young Kyu Kim (academic credentials unknown) published a very brief article in an obscure periodical (“Palaeographic Dating of p46 to the Later First Century,” Biblica Magazine, Vol. 69, No. 2, 1988). Kim looked at photographic plates of P46, compared what he saw with other SELECTED MSS, and came to some rather startling conclusions. In his OPINION virtually all paleographers who had examined (as of 1988) P46 were mistaken as to its date. Furthermore, many paleographers were mistaken as to the correct date of some of the MSS Kim selected to compare with P46. How do we know all these paleographers were mistaken? Kim says so.</font>
Now, this is a dramatic over simplification of course. Kim dared to challenge the fundamental assumptions of the textual critics. The assumptions that they labour under are almost as old as the science itself, and challenging the premises of any science can be an especially intimidating challenge. Few are up to it in any field.

Never the less, just because his ideas are new or revolutionary, obviously Kim cannot claim that they are right merely because he has made them. His arguments will stand or fall on their merits.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In his article, Kim states:

“...some previous palaeographers may sometimes have been influenced in their dating of p46 by the omission of iota ascriptum, usage of nomina sacra, and perhaps the Greek transliteration of a Latin name[Latin word] ...Now, however, these features turn out to have no bearing on my giving an early date to p46." [emphasis added]</font>
The word that was transliterated was Silbanov. This word had not previously appeared in any MSS dated earlier than 200AD, until one was found at Herculaneum, a town destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius in 79AD. Thus, when this word was found on documents in this town, obviously the assumption for a late 2nd Century date had to be abandoned.

Similarly, the use of the nomina sacra was hardly conclusive, as Colin Roberts had already shown that the greatest probability was that this tradition had been instituted by the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the city in 70AD. The fact that Roberts did not use this argument in dating P46 does not invalidate his conclusions. The simple fact is, we have not seen Robert's reasons for rejecting a 1st Century date for P46. No doubt it does not include the use of conflated nomina sacra.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Kim's major points:
1. “Two biblical papyri (P. Oxy. L3522 and the Minor Prophets of Wadi Murabba’at) have provided biblical texts of the first century AD omitting iota adscript.” Comment: This DOES NOT establish a date for P46. It merely establishes that P46 is missing certain characteristics that possibly earlier MSS are missing.</font>
Your casual dismissal of his finding does not invalidate the point. One cannot use the ommission of iota adscript as a reason to automatically date an MSS to the 2nd Century.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">2. “...the early usage of nomina sacra has been attested by a non-biblical papyrus fragment (PSI 1200 addendum), which was perhaps written about the same time as p46.” Comment: Even Kim admits, in his OPINION, [Footnote #50]“Palaeographically it would be possible that PSI 1200 addendum is assigned more to the early second century AD, but might be as old as the last decade of the first century AD.” Just because a “non-biblical” text from the second century CE contains nomina sacra, it does not follow that a biblical document containing same would date to precisely the same period. Obviously, P46 IS a biblical document. This DOES NOT establish a date for P46.</font>
And again, you are neglecting Roberts own arguments here for attributing the invention of the nomina sacra to mid-1st Century Jewish Christians. If such a practice was introduced this early, then it would be a key tool by which we could date an MSS to the latter part of the 1st Century. Saying that no MSS with nomina sacra has ever been found dating to the 1st Century is merely question begging. Obviously, if Kim is right, then we do have such a document.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">3. “Finally, as early as 1892 Th. Eckinger cited examples of [Latin word], four times in an inscription of ca. AD 4/5 (but [Latin word] three times from the first century), and O. Cair. J. E. 38622 (I/II AD) illustrates the name [Latin name] together with P. Oxy. II 335 (AD 85) and an exceptional calligraphical form of abbreviation [Greek word]. Comment: This does not establish a date for P46. </font>
You must have missed this one rodahi. One of the reasons given for dating P46 to c. 200 was the fact that it contained a transliteration of the Latin word Silbanov. Since this same name has appeared on documents found in the ruins of Herculaneum, this argument clearly fails. P46, containing the Latin word Silbanov can easily be from the same family of documents or traditions.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Kim’s whole article is nothing more than his OPINION on ligature forms, the usage of iota ascriptum, the Greek transliteration of Latin names, nomina sacra, MSS that MAY compare to P46, etc.</font>
Umm... rodahi? Scientific progress takes place when someone is brave and bold (or at least foolish) enough to advance a radically new hypothesis. The fact that such new hypothesis are challenged, or even rejected and dismissed by the community of scholars is to be expected. At the same time, if the arguments that support this (or any other new scientific) thesis proves to be stronger than the old arguments, then it will become the new paradigm (so to speak). This is neither a bad thing, nor something to be feared.

My own guess is that the Herculaneum find will yield more evidence for us from its still unexamined papyri, and we will continue to improve our dating methods, and become more accurate in dating many of the MSS we have in inventoried to date.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...As of today, I know of no scholar who agrees with his dating of P46.</font>
While this is a good point, unless we know the specific reasons why these scholars reject Kim's work, we cannot test how strong those arguments really are.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Are there other good reasons for dating P46 to a period around 200 CE? Yes! I plan to post those reasons very soon.</font>
I look forward to seeing them. Please offer them on this thread to avoid confusion.

Nomad
 
Old 04-30-2001, 11:42 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi, TheCandle.
It's quite ironic really, I was reading through this thread and I had just decided post a post very similar to yours when I came across yours. Very similar in most ways... except for being of the completely opposite view.

Rodahi, arguments from authority are all very well but I'm sure that scholars would be the first to agree we actually do need evidence and shouldn't blindly take the word of anyone. Real scholars are always prepared to re-examine old conclusions in light of new evidence or new interpretations and accept or reject new theories accordingly.
I could be easily convinced that Kim's position is so wierd and wacko that it shouldn't be taken seriously. I would be convinced if after claiming that all scholars date it to 200AD you'd given the evidence which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these all scholars are justified in their decision. Or if you'd quoted one of those scholars saying "Kim's dating is utter crap because...[and give evidence]".
But all I see coming from your corner is "this is OPINION!". Of course it is, and what is wrong with that? Scholarly opinions are based on the results of analysing the evidence and forming the opinion demanded by the evidence.
I really have to wonder whether you actually have any evidence against Kim's dating. If you'd only presented a small sample of evidence along with the 'all scholars disagree' bit I'd have believed you, but since you haven't actually presented any real evidence as of yet it strongly implies that none exists.
Nomad has given real evidence on why he believes Kim's date to be correct, why can you not do the same?

I suggest Nomad, that if Rodahi isn't going to present any evidence then you go through the reasoning of some of Rodahi's scholars and point out why various bits are wrong. I am sure many here are interested in this.
 
Old 05-01-2001, 05:41 AM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

On further reflection, I think this is actually two arguments:
(1) Rodahi is arguing about the importance of authority, and that if sufficient authorities place credence to an opinion, that opnion gains weight over a single, less known authority
(2) Nomad is arguing that whever an opinion is expressed by anybody, it is possible until refuted.

Unfortunately, Nomad, this seems to be the commonest *theme* of all creationist arguments (says The Candle, certainly a noive in this area). I say X. If you cannot disprove X, it is quite possibly true. This is why authority is so important in the area of *opinion*. We all accept no one can know exactly when P46 was written, and I think (perhaps incorrectly) no one here is a paprylogist... QED the opinion of authorites becomes important.

I think that rodahi accepts he/she/it is not sufficient authority to even argue with Kim (of unknown authority), but defers to great known scholars (apparently).


SO...


Solution
(1) Nomad demonstrates he/she/it is of siffucient authority herself/himself/itself to offer opinions on the papyrus
(2) Nomad provides evidence of the weight of Kims authority (eg. other papers, degrees from reputable universities, curriculum vitae)

In fairness:
(3)Rodahi provides list of schoalrs who diagree or propose alternate dates for P46, and *their* pedigrees.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:19 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.