Ulrich: 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.

I think you have taken Nomad's word that he has an argument. Would you please explain what his argument is?

Ulrich: 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.

It DOES matter to me. Before this debate is over, you will know why.

Ulrich: 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.

You are entitled to your opinion.



Urlrich: 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.

I said in an earlier post that I was attempting to get "evidential material." You continue to ignore this for some reason. When I get it, I will post it.

Urlrich: Perhaps you should research your topics a bit more before wading this deep into a discussion.

I have fully researched the issues surrounding P46. I am not a paleographer. For some reason you think Nomad must be.

Perhaps you should understand all the implications and ramifications related to the dating of ancient extant NT MSS before butting into debates that deal precisely with that issue.

rodahi

This is nonsense.

"All paleographers" is a set of people whose opinions can be identified, questioned and cross-examined. The Bible fails on all three categories.

In addition, the Bible is reknowned for being interpreted in multiple ways. It's hard to see how people could do that with paleographers, given that they do not speak in parables or hide their meanings in prophetic text. And, by the way, they are still accessible and can be questioned about exactly what they meant.

rodahi has also mentioned that the chief protagonist of the early dating is someone whose expertise is still unknown. Given that fact, plus the weight of the majority of scholars against the early dating, the burden of proof to overturn the status quo rests on the other side - not on rodahi.

I understand that rodahi is planning to present evidence later, as soon as he finishes his research. That's nice. But it's not necessary. If rodahi does present such evidence, then you should consider that icing on the cake; the burden of proof actually rests on Kim, and those who support him.

Ulrich

I agree with both of you, but that is not the issue. The issue is that saying "All paleographers agree with me", or "The Bible agrees with me", without elaborating what either source has to say, or presenting any evidence for why the source is correct, amounts to the same thing, and empty argument from authority.



So what you are saying is that you do not yet understand why the experts agree that Kim is in error, but as soon as you find out you will let us know. It seems you did your experts a great disservice by drawing them into this discussion when you did not fully understand their position.



Even if I did not previously understand Kims argument as represented by Nomad, it would be a simple matter at this point to go back and rephrase his arguments in this thread and others to make it appear that I had such knowledge before. But, then again, that would be entirely tangential to the discussion we are having here.

The discussion being that Nomad has actually presented an argument which would take some time and effort to paraphrase. I can paraphrase your argument in one simple sentence: "The experts agree with me."

Whether that statement is true or not, it is not much of an argument. Please provide more, or admit that you are out of your depth.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited May 10, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
quote:
Maybe you consider the Bible to be equal to expert paleographers in authority. I don't.
And from Omnedon1:
"All paleographers" is a set of people whose opinions can be identified, questioned and cross-examined. The Bible fails on all three categories.

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

Ulrich: I agree with both of you, but that is not the issue. The issue is that saying "All paleographers agree with me", or "The Bible agrees with me", without elaborating what either source has to say, or presenting any evidence for why the source is correct, amounts to the same thing, and empty argument from authority.

Would you explain what a paleographer does? If you don't know, then you are over your head in this discussion.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rodahi:
If you would take the time to read what I have said, you would know that I said I am putting together "evidential material."
And in the next post:
I said in an earlier post that I was attempting to get "evidential material." You continue to ignore this for some reason. When I get it, I will post it.


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

Ulrich: So what you are saying is that you do not yet understand why the experts agree that Kim is in error, but as soon as you find out you will let us know.

I KNOW why ALL paleographers reject Kim's conclusions. It has to do with Kim's opinions with respect to the shape/formation of Greek letter combinations,i.e., ligature forms, the use of nomina sacra, i.e., abreviation of sacred names, his choice of extant comparison MSS, and, most importantly, his dismissal of the opinions of expert paleographers who also looked at the codex. I KNEW this when I started this discussion. The things I did not know are some of the more technical aspects of paleography. When I have done the appropriate amount of research, I will present a refutation of Kim's article. If you cannot wait for this, then by all means, move on.

Ulrich: It seems you did your experts a great disservice by drawing them into this discussion when you did not fully understand their position.

Since you have not really understood what is at issue here, nor fully understood Kim's argument, you are not really qualified to speak of any "disservice" I may have done the experts I have quoted. I KNEW and understood their position BEFORE I quoted them. SOME people would consider their expert opinion superior to that of the unknown Kim. Obviously, YOU do not.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rodahi:
I think you have taken Nomad's word that he has an argument. Would you please explain what his argument is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulrich: Even if I did not previously understand Kims argument as represented by Nomad, it would be a simple matter at this point to go back and rephrase his arguments in this thread and others to make it appear that I had such knowledge before.

I don't think you know Nomad's argument. That being the case, you have no ground to stand on.

Ulrich: But, then again, that would be entirely tangential to the discussion we are having here.

Not at all! If you don't understand the argument, how would you know if it has been refuted or not?

Ulrich: The discussion being that Nomad has actually presented an argument which would take some time and effort to paraphrase.

Just do it!

Ulrich: I can paraphrase your argument in one simple sentence: "The experts agree with me."

With respect to the paleographical dating of P46, that is all I need to convince MOST reasonable people.

Ulrich: Whether that statement is true or not, it is not much of an argument. Please provide more, or admit that you are out of your depth.

1. I think it is a good argument, especially when one considers the technical nature of paleography.
2. I don't think you are qualified to question anything I have said with respect to the dating of P46.

rodahi

Didn't think so.

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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

rodahi


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

JubalH: Didn't think so.

Thank you for proving my point! If you had anything of substance you would have presented it.

rodahi

What started-out as a fascinating, educational thread has sadly degenerated into a pissing contest.

The first many posts were very interesting, even though there was obviuos disagreement among the "players," but the last several have been primarily an exchange of insults.

That's too bad, because it seemed as if there was still much more for us lurkers here to learn from the posters, but watching an exchange of insults is neither informative nor entertaining.

Rick

Hello Rick

I understand your frustration, and deliberately held off from posting to this thread in hopes that rodahi would have the time necessary to gather his evidence and arguments together. I expect that he will still do this, and that the debate will resume again at that point.

Tempers flair. People care deeply about their views and beliefs. I guess that means things will get hot from time to time.

From my point of view, and given the fact that I am occupied with my debate with Earl Doherty, I am content to wait on rodahi's next post offering his evidence. Maybe things can also calm down here as well.

Thank you for your thoughts, and for your patience.

Nomad

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rbochnermd:
What started-out as a fascinating, educational thread has sadly degenerated into a pissing contest.

The first many posts were very interesting, even though there was obviuos disagreement among the "players," but the last several have been primarily an exchange of insults.

That's too bad, because it seemed as if there was still much more for us lurkers here to learn from the posters, but watching an exchange of insults is neither informative nor entertaining.


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

Nomad: Hello Rick

I understand your frustration, and deliberately held off from posting to this thread in hopes that rodahi would have the time necessary to gather his evidence and arguments together. I expect that he will still do this, and that the debate will resume again at that point.

Tempers flair. People care deeply about their views and beliefs. I guess that means things will get hot from time to time.

From my point of view, and given the fact that I am occupied with my debate with Earl Doherty, I am content to wait on rodahi's next post offering his evidence. Maybe things can also calm down here as well.

Thank you for your thoughts, and for your patience.


To rbochnermd:

I thank you for your comments and I agree.


To Nomad:

I think a few more days will be sufficient time for me to gather the necessary material to enable me to present a refutation of Kim's conclusions.

rodahi

Rodahi and Nomad;

Thanks, I look forward to seeing more of your debate here.

Rick