Ulrich

I'm not sure what Mr. Kims credentials have to do with this discussion. Is it not possible for a man to be taken seriously without first presenting the proper credentials? If each discussion on this board required a check of the authors credentials, I fear many of us would no longer be allowed to post (myself included).

and in a later post:

If your search was confined to the internet, I am not surprised that you did not find any info on this periodical. Generally, if I wanted to look up an article in a periodical, I would go to the periodical room of the library. I fortunately have access to a good library at a research institute which contains a good number of obscure periodicals, and I realize that not everyone has this luxury. A nearby University library should do the trick for you, though.

No, but I am not that interested in the topic either, just the way it is being treated here. As far as your upcoming commentary, I think that is exactly what Nomad is looking for, so please "get on with it!" (Python quote, not trying to be rude).



Then why the big row about the possibility that it could be dated a bit earlier? Isn't the possibility at least worth entertaining in this forum?

Here's the partial on-line Biblica site. From the website:

It's published by the Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, a Roman Catholic institution. I haven't been able to find out much else.

I haven't been able to find any effective search for Biblica so I cannot determine if any discussion over the re-dating occurred in its issues. My expertise is in academia of the sciences and engineering, so I'm a little out of my territory here. I also don't know what the academic opinion of this journal is. However, the library at my current University has every single volume of Biblica since publication began in 1920 and we don't even have a seminary! Being the end of the semester and all, I simply do not have time to hunt through volumes of the journal to see if any discussion on the dating of P46 occurred in Biblica.

Stryder

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
1. Do you know who Young Kyu Kim is? If you don't, then join the club. No one else does either. Do you know what his credentials are? Again, no one else does either. To my knowledge, Kim is not qualified to give an opinion on P46.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulrich: I'm not sure what Mr. Kims credentials have to do with this discussion. Is it not possible for a man to be taken seriously without first presenting the proper credentials? If each discussion on this board required a check of the authors credentials, I fear many of us would no longer be allowed to post (myself included).

With respect to paleographically dating an ancient MS, Whose opinion should carry more weight, ten acknowledged expert paleographers or someone who posts here?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Are you familiar with the periodical Biblica Magazine? It is so obscure I cannot find even the tiniest bit of information about it. I have looked. And, yet, this is the ONLY place Kim has been published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and in a later post:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have scoured the internet and not found one reference to it besides Kim's article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulrich: If your search was confined to the internet, I am not surprised that you did not find any info on this periodical. Generally, if I wanted to look up an article in a periodical, I would go to the periodical room of the library. I fortunately have access to a good library at a research institute which contains a good number of obscure periodicals, and I realize that not everyone has this luxury. A nearby University library should do the trick for you, though.

I have already read the article. My point is, the magazine is not well known, not unheard of.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Have you read Kim's article, "Palaeological Dating of p46 to the Later First Century?" I have and I can tell you straight out, his methodology is flawed and extremely biased. I plan to offer more specific commentary on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulrich: No, but I am not that interested in the topic either, just the way it is being treated here.

Why have you not bothered reading the article?

Ulrich: As far as your upcoming commentary, I think that is exactly what Nomad is looking for, so please "get on with it!" (Python quote, not trying to be rude).

I don't mean to be rude, but what's your hurry? You haven't even read the article, and yet, you are eager to see my commentary. On what basis will you evaluate my arguments/statements, if you have no idea what the article is about? Are you going to use Nomad's statements as criteria, the way you have up to this point? Of course, it doesn't seem to bother you that Nomad hasn't read the article either.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, there is no good reason why P46 cannot date from the fourth century. For the most part, it is a matter of OPINION, not verifiable factual evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulrich: Then why the big row about the possibility that it could be dated a bit earlier? Isn't the possibility at least worth entertaining in this forum?

I don't think you understand what Kim is saying--of course, how could you?--you haven't even read his article. Virtually all paleographers date P46 to around 200 CE. Kim dates the MS to around 80-85 CE. And you call Kim's dating "a bit earlier."

It is only my opinion, but I think you have a greater interest in this debate than you are willing to admit. And I don't think it has anything to do with scientifically dating P46.

rodahi

From what I can find, even the University of Michigan Library--one of the biggest in the region--doesn't have it. Of course, their library system is rather confusing, so I may have simply missed it ...

--W@L

Ulrich, don't worry about Rodahi, he says that to everyone.

It just means he likes you.

Ish

Hi Ulrich

Don't worry about rodahi. Ish is right.

As for me, I'll wait for his evidence as to why we should date P46 to c.200AD

Thanks again,

Nomad

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulrich: No, but I am not that interested in the topic either, just the way it is being treated here.
Rodahi:
Why have you not bothered reading the article?

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

Ish: Ulrich, don't worry about Rodahi, he says that to everyone.

It just means he likes you.

If you have nothing substantive to say, Ish, why say anything at all?

Your postings have begun to have snide remarks scattered throughout. Do you wish to comment and debate seriously, or not?

rodahi

I am not sure whose posting is the least substantive, yours or Ish's.

BTW, I will have a few more things to say about your belief that P46 dates to around 85 CE.

rodahi

To all:

It was not my intent to link the Secular Web to an inappropriate website. (My posting and all those that referred to it have been deleted.) My intent was to tell Ish what I think of his recent commentary.

I checked the link before posting it and it went nowhere. I should have checked it twice. Also, I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to click on it.

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 03, 2001).]

Good grief, Rodahi. You are seeming like more and more of a bitter person. I was just poking a little fun at you. Check the smiley faces... That's why I put them there.

All I was doing was jokingly pointing out the fact that you seem to like to tell people what they have and have not read. It's beginning to seem kinda funny (at least to me).

Despite a few somewhat bitter posts on the Morton Smith stuff, I realize you have your opinions and I have mine. I'm holding no grudge...

I guess the point of this is simply to say, "Lighten up Rodahi!"

If there's one thing this website is teaching me, it is exactly that, to lighten up.

BTW. what in the world did you link to anyway? It was apparently removed before I even got to see it.

Ish



[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 03, 2001).]