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 05-01-2001, 08:57 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Interesting post. Just try not to overstate your case please.
...Hunger and Comfort date P46 to 150AD +/- 50 years...

Present evidence to back up your claim.

rodahi



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Philip Comfort says "Other papyrologists date it [P46] to the middle of the second century" (Essential Guide to Bible Versions, 2000). His foot note refers questioners to Earliest New Testamnet Manuscripts, pp. 193-197, Comfort and Barrett).


I would like to see Comfort and Hunger quoted as saying that P46 dates to 150 CE (or the mid second century.) We cannot tell from your quote precisely what Comfort believes, nor do we get anything about what Hunger believes. It remains to be seen who the "Other papyrologists" are.

Thanks, anyway.

rodahi

 
Old 05-05-2001, 03:24 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

For anyone who really cares about the dating of P46, the issue is not dead. It is taking me some time to get all the information I need to refute Nomad's (via Kim) dating of P46 to circa 85 CE.

I will say that I was able to make contact with well-known scholar, Bart D. Ehrman. He stated (in an email to me on 5-5-01) "I haven't delved into the subject [of dating P46], but have heard the papers and opinions by other experts, including Metzger, Bruce Griffin, and others. No one I have ever discussed the matter with believes that Kim's early dating can possibly be correct.. [emphasis added]

I know this "just an appeal to authority," but Ehrman is quite an authority. See http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/ehrmancv.html

According to Dr. Larry W. Hurtado, who also responded to an inquiry via email (on 5-3-01), "I have read the Biblica article proposing a late first-century dating of P46, but the impression I have is that Kim has not succeeded with palaeographic experts on this issue...One thing I can say is that Kim seems to me to have made a mistake in method similar to the sort of mistake made also by C. P. Thiede, attempting to settle palaeographic matters by study of this or that character. Palaeographers grant that dating is often not an exact science, and that in any case judgements have to be made on careful comparisons of *all* characters in a text, plus any other factors." [emphasis added]

Dr. Hurtado is another impressive NT scholar. See http://www.div.ed.ac.uk/contact/staf.../l_hurtado.htm

I have added the following:

[A] highly problematic proposal has been made recently concerning the date of the important Chester Beatty Biblical Papyrus II, P46, which has hitherto been dated by palaeographers to about A.D. 200. On the basis of a comparison made with the style of Greek letters in certain other documents dating from the last century B.C. and the first century A.D., and argument was built up by Y. K. Kim to show that P46 should be dated ‘Later First Century’. Although, of course, close comparison with the style of other documents is necessary--and must be checked by other scholars--other considerations should also be taken into account. If we assume that the year A. D. 80 would be a reasonable figure on Kim’s basis, we are confronted with several highly improbable circumstances. First, P46 is a perfectly ordinary copy--certainly not the archetype of the Pauline corpus! It must have taken some time for the nine Epistles that are preserved in P46 to have been collected, then a copy made of the corpus (the archetype), and finally a copy of this to reach the interior of Egypt. Furthermore, as T. C. Skeat commented to the present writer (in a letter dated 15 September 1988), ‘We would have to accept that it is, by a very wide margin, the oldest surviving Christian manuscript and the oldest surviving example of a papyrus codex. Moreover, P46 uses an extensive and well-developed system of nomina sacra, which it is difficult to believe can have existed, not merely in A. D. 80, but presumably in one of its ancestors. I therefore find it impossible to accept Kim’s thesis’. It is certainly significant that the late E. G. Turner [an expert paleographer], who examined in original or in photograph, over 500 codices, dated P46 firmly as ‘3rd century’." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, pp. 265-266.

Further, I received (via email on 5-02-01) the following commentary from paleographer Robert A. Kraft: “Definitive information on paleographical matters is hard to obtain. Gathering votes of experts is easier, but frequently inconclusive except in a general sense. The Chester Beatty Paul codex P\46/ is dated to the third century in my old Nestle NT from 1950, but in the 1966 UBS edition it is listed as ‘about 200.’ E. G. Turner, in his Typology of the Early Codex (1977), sticks with the 3rd century date (Turner was one of the top paleographers of his time) [All parenthetical statements are Dr. Kraft‘s]. H. Gamble in his Books and Readers in the Early Church (1995) reports ‘about 200’ (but he himself is not an independent expert).
J. van Haelst in his 1976 Catalogue of Jewish and Christian papyri summarizes the dating debate to that time among experts: Kenyon said first half of the 3rd century, Wilchen (followed by Aland) argued for around 200, while Sanders thought second half of 3rd century...I would be very surprised if a convincing argument could be made for any date much earlier than the late second century.” [emphasis added in above two passages]

To see Dr. Kraft's credentials, go to http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cv.html

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 06, 2001).]
 
Old 05-06-2001, 04:27 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I am still waiting for Nomad to present Young Kyu Kim's credentials, or whereabouts, or ANYTHING on Kim. So far, Nomad has only presented a portion of Daniel Wallace's analysis of Kim's article and called that an "argument."

rodahi
 
Old 05-06-2001, 09:12 PM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I'm interested. Good work, Rodahi.
Nomad, the ball is in your court.

Michael
 
Old 05-06-2001, 10:58 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Rodahi

You posted the exact same argument from Metzger once before, and I refuted it then. As you will see on the thread I will quote, you offered no rebuttal to my arguments beyond what you are still asserting, namely, that no one finds Kim convincing. Personally, I only care about one thing now, and that is WHY they do not find him convincing.

So, once again, Bruce Metzger's thoughts from Redating the Books of the New Testament my post of Feb 8 at 12:55AM:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">penatis/rodahi: Bruce M. Metzger states the following: "If we assume that the year A. D. 80 would be a reasonable figure on Kim's basis, we are confronted with several highly improbable circumstances. First P46 is a perfectly ordinary copy--certainly not the archetype of the Pauline corpus! It must have taken some time for the nine Epistles that are preserved in P46 to have been collected,

Nomad: This, of course, is pure conjecture on Metzger's part, and shows why Wallace did not find the argument convincing. We see no reason whatsoever to conclude that it would have taken very long to collect these Epistles together. In fact, based on what we DO know about the early church, these letters were being widely circulated, even during Paul's own lifetime! Fifteen or more years between his death, and the collection of his most important letters is certainly not a short period of time.</font>
If you can offer something substantive, then please do so. These continued appeals to authority are quite tiresome, and I am already prepared to stipulate that the vast majority of scholars (if not all of them, for all I know or care) disagree with Kim. I want to know why.

From your post, Kraft, Hurtardo, and Erhman offered nothing in your post beyond what you have already told us. They think Kim is wrong, and they think that everyone else thinks that Kim is wrong. Now tell us why.

Finally, none of your posts explains why we should reject an earlier dating of c. 80AD as being possible for P46. Circular reasoning doesn't cut it, and arguing about how long it would take to compile such a corpus is hardly very interesting either.

I will wait for your evidence rodahi. Please offer it.

As it stands right now, I can definitely sympathize with Dr. Wallace when he noted (from my same post of Feb. 8):

29 1 have spoken with many NT textual critics to get their feedback on Kim’s article (including Bruce Metzger, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Eldon Epp, Michael Holmes, Thomas Geer, and J. K. Elliott), and not one had any substantive arguments against Kim’s evidence. (emphasis added). A few years ago, in the textual criticism group at the Society of Biblical Literature, an Oxford Ph.D. student in papyrology presented a paper in which all of Kim’s arguments were refuted. It was a convincing piece of work.

Maybe Griffin is the guy that Wallace is referring to here, I do not know. But until we see what Wallace found convincing in this latter presentation, we can certainly see why he wasn't impressed by what the crowd you have put forward had to say on the matter.

I am going to be very busy with Doherty from this point forward. I would appreciate it if you stopped wasting time with more assertions and appeals to authority, and just presented your arguments rodahi. Take as much time as you need. I will still be here.

Nomad

P.S. For those that have not read it Kim's article is found here.
 
Old 05-07-2001, 04:48 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
[b]Rodahi

You posted the exact same argument from Metzger once before, and I refuted it then.]/b]

Wait a minute. It is this type of language that might be convincing others (Ulrich and TheCandle) that you really know what you are talking about. You "refuted" nothing. In other words, you DID NOT prove Metzger wrong. You made a couple of un-evidenced assertions and left it at that.

Nomad: As you will see on the thread I will quote, you offered no rebuttal to my arguments beyond what you are still asserting, namely, that no one finds Kim convincing.

You continue to misrepresent my position and YOURS. As a part of my rebuttal is an appeal to ALL palaeographers. I also pointed out problems with some of Kim's conclusions. I have quoted recognized scholars, one of whom specifically alluded to Kim's problematic methodology. Also, I have pointed out the question of Kim's qualifications. You, on the other hand, have read a portion of Daniel Wallace's analysis of 2 Peter in which Wallace briefly spoke of P46 and Kim's attempt to redate it. After reading this brief commentary, you have rehased Wallace's statements and called this rehashing an "argument."

Nomad: Personally, I only care about one thing now, and that is WHY they do not find him convincing.

I don't think anything would "convince" you.

rodahi

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:17 PM.

Top

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