Bede,

You have ignored the FACT that Nomad appeals to authority in this debate, namely the "authority" of the unknown Young Kyu Kim. I have appealed to the authority of ALL paleographers. If you don't see the difference, you aren't looking very hard.

rodahi

To all:

I think the CORRECT dating of the earliest extant MS containing Paul's letters (and the letter to Hebrews) to be highly significant. It is for this reason that I continue to keep this thread alive. "Stalling" might be a better word.

A few have shown disappointment that I have not offered evidence to augment my "appeal to authority." EVIDENCE is coming. Please be patient.

I consider "evidence," "argument," and in some cases "appeal to authority" to be important, in the order given. Unfortunately, in this debate, I have had little recourse but to rely on expert opinion, i.e., "appeal to authority." In this particular case, I think expert opinion is important because dating ancient MSS is a highly technical enterprise. (There simply are not very many qualified paleographers in the world examining ancient Christian MSS. Also, most of our readers are not familiar with the technical arguments paleographers make and the technical terms they use to make said arguments. Who among the readers is going to recognize the best paleographical evidence/argument?) BUT, expert opinion is not enough! Before I am finished (and hopefully very soon), I will have expert opinion AND evidence with which to argue my case.

rodahi

Rodahi, I don't completely understand why you keep talking about the "unknown" Kim and the "hard to find" publication, Biblica.

For one, I have seen several excellent scholarly books now that at least mention Kim's work in Biblica. Kim doesn't seem to be in the field of Paleography, but he apparently knows enough to get his work published by a respected technical journal, right or wrong.

As far as the Biblica publication goes, I have seen it listed and quoted in several scholarly books now. I just got a new book on the Dead Sea Scrolls by Joseph Fitzmyer (The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, 2000) in which Chapter 3 is based directly on an article that he wrote for Biblica 74 (1993, pp.153-174) entitled "4Q246: The 'Son of God' document from Qumran".

Now, Fitzmyer is a big name in DSS research, and if he has a publication in Biblica, then I don't think that Biblica is so obscure. I imagine there are plenty of other good scholars published there. Like I said earlier, none of these kinds of scholarly journals are easy to find for laymen.

So, at this point, I consider it pure rhetoric and handwaving to dismiss both Kim and the publication, Biblica. You might reconsider attacking them and attack the arguments instead.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 09, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Rodahi, I don't completely understand why you keep talking about the "unknown" Kim and the "hard to find" publication, Biblica.

1. Until someone presents SOMETHING about Kim, other than the fact that he wrote an article in 1988 for Biblica, it seems appropriate to consider him "unknown." I do not doubt his existence; I just don't know anything about him.

2. I acknowledge that Biblica may not be as "hard to find" as I once thought.

Ish: For one, I have seen several excellent scholarly books now that at least mention Kim's work in Biblica.

Would you mind listing the "excellent scholarly books?" I know you mentioned a book by Phillip Comfort.

Ish: Kim doesn't seem to be in the field of Paleography, but he apparently knows enough to get his work published by a respected technical journal, right or wrong.

You make it sound as if Kim has published a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed scientifically-oriented journal. You and I know that is not the case. Why do you call Biblica a "technical journal?"

Ish: As far as the Biblica publication goes, I have seen it listed and quoted in several scholarly books now.

I acknowledge that fact.

Ish: I just got a new book on the Dead Sea Scrolls by Joseph Fitzmyer (The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, 2000) in which Chapter 3 is based directly on an article that he wrote for Biblica 74 (1993, pp.153-174) entitled "4Q246: The 'Son of God' document from Qumran".

Okay.

Ish: Now, Fitzmyer is a big name in DSS research, and if he has a publication in Biblica, then I don't think that Biblica is so obscure. I imagine there are plenty of other good scholars published there. Like I said earlier, none of these kinds of scholarly journals are easy to find for laymen.

Okay.

Ish: So, at this point, I consider it pure rhetoric and handwaving to dismiss both Kim and the publication, Biblica.

Certainly, you have every right to think what you wish. I don't dismiss Young Kyu Kim. I just don't know anything about him and have said so.

Ish: You might reconsider attacking them and attack the arguments instead.

I plan to present evidence refuting Kim's conclusions. I said that in my previous posting.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 09, 2001).]

What would you call it then? Where is my terminology wrong?

I think Kim's argument is rather scientific and technical. I've been reading Fitzmyer's article with it's detailed examination of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek of the DSS. Also, Biblica is mentioned by Crossan and Blomberg in Paul Copan's Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up. These articles don't sound like the average Joe's kind of reading, just strange people like us who are actually intrigued by it.

Also, I would imagine that the author's have their articles peer-reviewed to at least some extent before publishing them in a journal that seems to be widely read by many scholars.

Anyway, my main point was to address the fact that Biblica is not obscure and Kim should probably be taken seriously on some level even if his ideas have mostly been rejected.

Ish

I've read this thread, Kim's article, and the "What is P46" thread, but I'm still not understanding something: why is the dating of this particular MS of such importance?

Rick

Do you have any debate skills besides insulting and screaming? A thread with 70+ posts and this little progress is worthy of comment. For whom are you writing if not the peanut-gallery? My comment is called "feedback." It's not always complimentary.

ps Playing "hide-the-link" about the article was pretty childish too.

Ulrich

The tactic of using an appeal to authority as your sole argument. Replace the phrase "all expert paleographers" with the word "Bible" in any of your posts in this thread and you will see what I mean. Would you accept this type of an argument from a theist? I doubt it, you would rightly press for a real argument containing some sort of evidential material.



I am perfectly aware of what the argument is, and when I demonstrated my awareness in a previous post you did not disagree with my evaluation of the argument. I can only wonder why you chose do make it seem that I do not understand the argument now. It is true, however, that I do not attach any interest to the subject. My reasoning for not attaching any interest is that it does not matter to me whether the P46 MSS is dated to 200 CE, or 79 CE. Either way it will not change my mind on the subject of the divinity of Jesus (not divine IMHO), or the fact that he ever lived at all (no reason to doubt it at this point AFAIK). Now show me a Pauline epistle that predates 30 CE, or a portion of Mark from before 1 CE and I will repidly become interested.



Now we are getting somewhere, you are finally showing us where your information is coming from. You have demonstrated with the quote from Hurtado, as well as a few others, that you understand that they disagree with Kim. You have also demonstrated why you have yet to produce an argument yourself. The sources you are quoting do not explain why they reject Kim, therefor you do not understand why they are rejecting Kim. Perhaps you should research your topics a bit more before wading this deep into a discussion.

WOW! Do you have anything of substance to add or not? You seem to be the "screamer" sort, not I.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
[b]Precisely what tactic have I used that is "similar" to what theists have used?

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

Ulrich: The tactic of using an appeal to authority as your sole argument. Replace the phrase "all expert paleographers" with the word "Bible" in any of your posts in this thread and you will see what I mean.

Maybe you consider the Bible to be equal to expert paleographers in authority. I don't.

Ulrich: Would you accept this type of an argument from a theist? I doubt it, you would rightly press for a real argument containing some sort of evidential material.

If you would take the time to read what I have said, you would know that I said I am putting together "evidential material."

rodahi