Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 08-26-2002, 08:02 AM

ReasonableDoubt, I also noticed that assertion in the Ecole Glossary. However, it is not my claim that this statue is an accurate or original depiction of Hippolytus. It is possible that the statue was an adaptation of a pagan piece of art. However, the inscription clearly dates to the third century, most obviously because of the list of Easter dates starting in 222, which coheres with what we know of Hippolytus' period of activity from literary sources.

best,
Peter Kirby

Jayhawker Soule · 08-26-2002, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
It is possible that the statue was an adaptation of a pagan piece of art. However, the inscription clearly dates to the third century, most obviously because of the list of Easter dates starting in 222, which coheres with what we know of Hippolytus' period of activity from literary sources.

I'm sorry, but I really do not understand. If, for example, it turned out that the statue was 'adapted' in the 5th-6th century CE or later, what becomes of the probative value of the Easter dates?

Your initial quote includes the phrase:

Quote:

... Wordsworth, who admirably illustrates the means by which such a statue may have been provided, gives us good reasons for supposing that it may have been the grateful tribute of contemporaries, and all the more trustworthy as a portrait of the man himself.

I'd be curious to learn what these "good reasons" might have been.

Peter Kirby · 08-26-2002, 08:43 AM

ReasonableDoubt: I'm sorry, but I really do not understand. If, for example, it turned out that the statue was 'adapted' in the 5th-6th century CE or later, what becomes of the probative value of the Easter dates?

You have added the stipulation that the adaptation happened in the 5th-6th century. It is clear to me that an adaptation, if there were one, happened in the third century.

ReasonableDoubt: I'd be curious to learn what these "good reasons" might have been.

The author is long dead and is not available to field our questions. But since you show an interest, I will let you know if I read anything more on the Hippolytus statue and inscription.

best,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky · 08-26-2002, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
Reasonable,

Palaeography compares the hand writing of dated documents (like decrees, legal records etc) of which there are loads from many sources like the rubbish dumps of Oxyrynchus, with the handwriting of undated documents (like the NT). Tests (using palaeography to date documents we know the date of) suggest we can get an accuracy of about +-25 years or so.

Bede,

But what I'm saying is that a tiny and unprovenanced scrap of writing like p52 cannot be dated at all with any such certainty. And furthermore, even real (i.e. very long) MSS cannot really be dated within the date range of +/- 25 years. Generally speaking, a date range of +/- 100 years is a lot more reasonable and honest (although there may be a few exceptions, perhaps).

Also, I see that CX has posted in this thread some pretty good info about the conventional dating of p52. Since this relates specifically to p52, I will soon post in the other thread (the Rylands Papyrus fraud) some more recent info about this.

All the best,

Yuri.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-27-2002, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
Tests (using palaeography to date documents we know the date of) suggest we can get an accuracy of about +-25 years or so.

I failed to challenge this when first asserted. I would very much like to learn the specifics of these tests.

08-28-2002, 01:23 AM

Reasonable,

I think you need to look for a paleaographical text book like Thompsons (http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm?&ID=32800) although something more up to date may be around by now. This is a well established subject in many universities and is used in mainstream history so it is not a big Christian conspiracy as Yuri seems to be suggesting here and elsewhere.

Yours

Bede

PS: As I mentioned to Toto, I have been exiled to Germany for six weeks and seriously lack net time.

David Conklin · 08-31-2002, 03:48 PM

Quote:

I'm not even sure that a date of 125 CE _necessarily_ means that John is from the 1st century. It is disengenuous to claim that fragment P52 "proves" that John was written in the 1st century. I'm not familiar with Minnen's work, but this overstatement alone would make me question his scholarship.

What Minnen said was: "For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars."

That is, in simpler English, since the fragment we have has been dated around 125 A.D. that means that the original (unless the fragment we have is the original!) must have been written earlier -- approx. in the first century.

David Conklin · 08-31-2002, 03:56 PM

Quote:

An additional problem with P52 is that it is extremely small, as well as extremely fragmentary. While I think this is sometimes overstated (i.e. "no two consecutive words...") the fact is P52 contains only 14 complete words intact and 33 words if we reconstruct it from what we know of canonical John. So at best we have 33 words out of 15,635 words in the gospel or about 0.002%. It is simply too small a sample to say anything with respect to GJn.

On the contrary. Look at any ancient mss and note how many lines per column and how many letters per line there are. Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration has a number of photographs of ancient mss. By knowing those numbers and placing the fragment in what the whole would have been you can tell exactly where it came from. The fragment 7Q5 has only one full word ("kai" = "and") and a number of fragments of others (it's about the size of a postage stamp) and from that they could tell that it came from Mark. It isn't guesswork when you know what to look for and how to look.

David Conklin · 08-31-2002, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Josephus is dependent upon a 4th century CE Eusebius. The earliest Josephus MS is dated to the 10th century CE.

Josephus died in ab't the year 100 (he was an eyewitness to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.). For him to have been "dependent" on anything from something that happened 300 years later is physically impossible.

David Conklin · 08-31-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Even if we accept a date for p46 around 175 CE, how is that earlier than p52?

p52 was written ab't 110 A.D.. p46 according to Kim "was written some time before the reign of the emperor Domitian" (51-96 A.D.).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-26-2002, 08:02 AM	#21
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	ReasonableDoubt, I also noticed that assertion in the Ecole Glossary. However, it is not my claim that this statue is an accurate or original depiction of Hippolytus. It is possible that the statue was an adaptation of a pagan piece of art. However, the inscription clearly dates to the third century, most obviously because of the list of Easter dates starting in 222, which coheres with what we know of Hippolytus' period of activity from literary sources. best, Peter Kirby

08-26-2002, 08:43 AM	#23
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	ReasonableDoubt: I'm sorry, but I really do not understand. If, for example, it turned out that the statue was 'adapted' in the 5th-6th century CE or later, what becomes of the probative value of the Easter dates? You have added the stipulation that the adaptation happened in the 5th-6th century. It is clear to me that an adaptation, if there were one, happened in the third century. ReasonableDoubt: I'd be curious to learn what these "good reasons" might have been. The author is long dead and is not available to field our questions. But since you show an interest, I will let you know if I read anything more on the Hippolytus statue and inscription. best, Peter Kirby

08-28-2002, 01:23 AM	#26
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Reasonable, I think you need to look for a paleaographical text book like Thompsons (http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm?&ID=32800) although something more up to date may be around by now. This is a well established subject in many universities and is used in mainstream history so it is not a big Christian conspiracy as Yuri seems to be suggesting here and elsewhere. Yours Bede PS: As I mentioned to Toto, I have been exiled to Germany for six weeks and seriously lack net time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.