We are now so hopelessly off topic on the thread Review of "The Bible Unearthed", that I thought I would bring the discussion of the dating of the papyrus P46 to a new thread.

From my original post on Redating the Books of the New Testament:

Base on the work of the papyrologist, Young-Kyu Kim, the dating of the codex P46, a collection of Pauline letters (including Colossians, but excluding the Pastorals of 1&2 Timothy, and Titus) that has been traditionally dated to around 200AD, we now have learned that the codex needs to be dated much later. Kim published his findings in “Biblica 69” in 1988. His studies of P46 shows that the codex should be dated no later than 85AD. His arguments focus on three areas (quoted from an article by Dr. D.B. Wallace):

Kim believes that his evidence “strongly suggests that Ì46 (or P46) was written some time before the reign of the emperor Domitian”—that is, before 81 CE. Kim gives several strands of evidence for this hypothesis, all of a palaeographical nature:

(1) the ligature forms of Ì46 do not occur later than the first century;
(2) “all literary papyri similar to Ì46 in its exact style… have been assigned to an early date [i.e., no later than c. 150 CE]”; and
(3) Ì46 belongs to the earlier type of such styles.
Kim then gives three counter-arguments to a later date: although the manuscript omits iota adscripts, has nomina sacra, and transliterates the Latin name Silbanov" (three points which pointed earlier scholars to a date of 200), other first century papyri have been found to do the same. If Kim’s redating of Ì46 is correct, among other things it does indicate that a collection of Paul’s letters existed no later than the 70s CE.
Daniel B. Wallace, The Prof’s Soapbox

None of these arguments have been addressed in any of rodahi’s posts excepting the argument on the conflated nomina sacra, and as I showed, this argument was hopelessly circular. In other words, the argument offered against Kim’s dating P46 to the late 1st Century that no pre-3rd Century MSS has ever contained any conflated nomina sacra, then what is to stop us from saying that now we do have such an MSS? Since Griffon did not appear to rely upon this argument, however, then tell us why he did reject Kim’s findings, and then we can discuss how strong his arguments really are.

You have not yet told us what Griffin’s arguments actually are. By appealing to authority, but failing to offer up their arguments and evidence, how exactly would you propose that we judge the quality of those arguments? Give us something to look at rodahi, then we can discuss it.

I accept Kim’s findings on the grounds that he has offered his arguments, they appear to be solidly reasoned, and no one has offered a public rebuttal that can be examined. I do not think that appeals to authority should be accepted in this debate, and will ask you again to offer your proofs, evidence, and arguments for us to discuss. If they are better than Kim’s arguments, then so be it. P46 can be dated to the 2nd Century. As it stands right now, I do not see why you have placed your faith in Griffon and his supporters rodahi. Do you know what their arguments actually are or not? If you do, give them to us.

At the same time, since the question of the nomina sacra has come up, I believe that it deserves its own mention here, and I will again offer my original post from the Redating the Books of the New Testament thread where I discussed this exact point (from my post of Feb. 10, 2001):

“…Traditionally, as I have noted earlier, scholars have tended to see the codex as a 2nd Century invention, but evidence has led us to learn that it was, in fact, a 1st Century invention.

One of the most important issues that needs to be addressed, is when, exactly, was the nomina sacra first used. Quite simply, the nomina sacra was the tradition of scribes to abbreviate the names and titles given to God. These words were abbreviated by using only the first and last letter of each word, thus pneuma (Spirit) became PN, Ieusus (Jesus) became IS, theos (God) became TS, and so on. The German scholar Ludwig Traube, in his book Nomina Sacra (Munchen, 1907) determined that there were 15 words in total given this special treatment.

As to when this tradition first took root amongst Christians, it was Colin Roberts who first proposed the first Christians in Jerusalem as the most probable candidates for such a move. His reasoning was quite simple, and convincing. Jews, as a tradition, and even to this day, when writing the words God, or Lord, have always abreviated them to GD and LRD respectively. Since the very first Christians were, themselves Jews, it stands to reason that they would continue this tradition in their own writings, although in a slightly different manner. Rather than simply removing the vowels from these sacred names, Christian scribes would use only the first and last letter of the appropriate word.

Using this reasoning, …Roberts suggested that the nomina sacra were first introduced by the Jerusalem community before its dispersion-or rather its voluntary escape-prior to the Jewish revolt against the Romans, which began in A.D. 66… “the holy names… (were) the embriotic Creed of the first Church.”
C.P. Thiede and M. D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus, (Doubleday, 1996), pg. 144, quoting from Colin Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London 1979), pg. 46.

Thus, we find a papyrologist, namely Roberts, that concludes that there is no compelling paleographical reason to reject first century works simply because they contain nomina sacra.

“The spread of Christianity was also assisted by a special literature, such as was produced by no other ancient Church except that of the Jews. The teaching of Jesus, which was first preserved by oral tradition (this long survived), was soon set down in written records (probably in Aramaic) as early as the middle of the first century, and was then expanded in Greek by the authors of the first three Gospels from their own knowledge and that of the disciples…
By c. 130 the Four Gospels and thirteen Epistles by St Paul were generally accepted as a New Testament Canon, comparable with the books of the Old Testament which had formed the first scriptures of the earliest Christians…”
A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine, M. Cary and H.H. Scullard, MacMillan Press, 1979, pg. 485.”

Given that we have accepted that the Pauline Epistles existed in some collective form early in the 2nd Century, it is hardly a stretch to accept that a late 1st Century document could easily have already been in existence. Kim offers us good reasons to believe that P46 may well be that document, and in the absence of convincing counter arguments, I think it is reasonable to give credence to his expert opinions.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 30, 2001).]

Just for the benefit of an observer, can anyone tell me what the overall importance is of the dating for this P46 document? What is the significance of dating it in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd centuries?

Good question max.

The reason this discussion may be important is that one of the underlying assumptions within the world of scientific papyrology is that the codex was not introduced until late in the 2nd Century. On this basis, when a new papyrus (or even an old one we have had for a long time) is examined, if we know that it came from a codex, we cannot date it earlier than the late 2nd Century.

The problem here, of course, is that this argument is circular. If we automatically reject a 1st Century date for a document largely on the basis of it being written on a codex instead of a scroll, how will we ever determine that it may actually have come from the 1st Century? The same holds true when arguing about the nomina sacra and when they first came into use. Basically, the best approach, in my view, is to not use these kinds of presuppositions when examining a document, and try as best as we can from the available evidence to determine the date for a particular MSS.

Peace,

Nomad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
We are now so hopelessly off topic on the thread Review of "The Bible Unearthed", that I thought I would bring the discussion of the dating of the papyrus P46 to a new thread.

You have not yet told us what Griffin’s arguments actually are. By appealing to authority, but failing to offer up their arguments and evidence, how exactly would you propose that we judge the quality of those arguments? Give us something to look at rodahi, then we can discuss it.

What efforts have you made to find out what Bruce W. Griffin presented to the SBL meeting?

Nomad: I accept Kim’s findings on the grounds that he has offered his arguments, they appear to be solidly reasoned, and no one has offered a public rebuttal that can be examined.

Translation: "I accept Kim's findings because he and I agree that we MUST desperately cling to the idea that P46 dates earlier than 200 CE."

Nomad: I do not think that appeals to authority should be accepted in this debate, and will ask you again to offer your proofs, evidence, and arguments for us to discuss.

You appeal to Kim's "authority." I appeal to that of ALL scholars.

Nomad: If they are better than Kim’s arguments, then so be it. P46 can be dated to the 2nd Century.

No, P46 is dated to 200 CE.

Nomad: As it stands right now, I do not see why you have placed your faith in Griffon and his supporters rodahi.

I place a high value on the opinions of ALL scholars who have examined P46. I include Bruce W. Griffin.

Nomad: Do you know what their arguments actually are or not? If you do, give them to us.

You appeal to the opinions of Kim. Why so?

[b]Nomad: At the same time, since the question of the nomina sacra has come up, I believe that it deserves its own mention here, and I will again offer my original post from the Redating the Books of the New Testament thread where I discussed this exact point (from my post of Feb. 10, 2001):

“…Traditionally, as I have noted earlier, scholars have tended to see the codex as a 2nd Century invention, but evidence has led us to learn that it was, in fact, a 1st Century invention.

One of the most important issues that needs to be addressed, is when, exactly, was the nomina sacra first used. Quite simply, the nomina sacra was the tradition of scribes to abbreviate the names and titles given to God. These words were abbreviated by using only the first and last letter of each word, thus pneuma (Spirit) became PN, Ieusus (Jesus) became IS, theos (God) became TS, and so on. The German scholar Ludwig Traube, in his book Nomina Sacra (Munchen, 1907) determined that there were 15 words in total given this special treatment.

As to when this tradition first took root amongst Christians, it was Colin Roberts who first proposed the first Christians in Jerusalem as the most probable candidates for such a move. His reasoning was quite simple, and convincing. Jews, as a tradition, and even to this day, when writing the words God, or Lord, have always abreviated them to GD and LRD respectively. Since the very first Christians were, themselves Jews, it stands to reason that they would continue this tradition in their own writings, although in a slightly different manner. Rather than simply removing the vowels from these sacred names, Christian scribes would use only the first and last letter of the appropriate word.

Using this reasoning, …Roberts suggested that the nomina sacra were first introduced by the Jerusalem community before its dispersion-or rather its voluntary escape-prior to the Jewish revolt against the Romans, which began in A.D. 66… “the holy names… (were) the embriotic Creed of the first Church.”
C.P. Thiede and M. D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus, (Doubleday, 1996), pg. 144, quoting from Colin Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London 1979), pg. 46.

Two things: 1) Colin H. Roberts dated P46 to the early third century. (Why would he do that, Nomad, knowing about the early use of nomina sacra?) 2) Carsten Peter Thiede, to my knowledge, has no academic credentials. Why should we believe him?

Nomad: Thus, we find a papyrologist, namely Roberts, that concludes that there is no compelling paleographical reason to reject first century works simply because they contain nomina sacra.

Again, Colin H. Roberts dated P46 to the early third century CE.

“The spread of Christianity was also assisted by a special literature, such as was produced by no other ancient Church except that of the Jews. The teaching of Jesus, which was first preserved by oral tradition (this long survived), was soon set down in written records (probably in Aramaic) as early as the middle of the first century, and was then expanded in Greek by the authors of the first three Gospels from their own knowledge and that of the disciples…
By c. 130 the Four Gospels and thirteen Epistles by St Paul were generally accepted as a New Testament Canon, comparable with the books of the Old Testament which had formed the first scriptures of the earliest Christians…”
A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine, M. Cary and H.H. Scullard, MacMillan Press, 1979, pg. 485.”

What evidence do Cary and Scullard give to back up their claim that "The teaching of Jesus, which was first preserved by oral tradition (this long survived), was soon set down in written records (probably in Aramaic) as early as the middle of the first century, and was then expanded in Greek by the authors of the first three Gospels from their own knowledge and that of the disciples…?" Are these commentators historians or apologists, Nomad?

Nomad: Given that we have accepted that the Pauline Epistles existed in some collective form early in the 2nd Century

You may accept this, but why should I? Where is the evidence that the 13 letters attributed to Paul had been collected, named, and appropriately sequenced by the early second century?

Nomad: it is hardly a stretch to accept that a late 1st Century document could easily have already been in existence.

I don't accept you first premise; therefore, I cannot accept your second.

Nomad: Kim offers us good reasons to believe that P46 may well be that document

No, Kim does not. That is why no scholar agrees with his dating of P46.

Nomad: and in the absence of convincing counter arguments, I think it is reasonable to give credence to his expert opinions.

I will give "credence" to ALL scholars. You may give credence to the obscure Kim if you wish.

rodahi





[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 30, 2001).]

Rodahi

Even for you this is pathetic. You obviously don't know what Griffin's arguments were or you would have offered them by now. You are clearly not interested in discussing this topic, yet you persist in hurling abuse at Kim, his findings, and tell us that scholars disagree with him. I already knew all of this, but what I find more and more astonishing is that no one appears willing to put these arguments out in public. Tell us what they are, don't keep telling us that scholars think Kim is wrong, tell us WHY they think that he is wrong.

As for you questioning Cary and Scullard, you must be joking. A History of Rome : Down to the Reign of Constantine is considered to be among the leading secular histories on ancient Rome. Try not to be paranoid rodahi, and deal with the arguments. Questioning the sources without offering rebuttals has become your trademark, but is not solid argumentation.

Give us the arguments, or withdraw.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 30, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Rodahi

Even for you this is pathetic.

What is "pathetic," Nomad, is the fact that you accept the OPINION of someone who has unknown credentials. Further, you accept the OPINION of Carsten Peter Thiede, a pseudo-scholar if there ever was one. Put the two together and what do you have, Nomad?

Nothing + zero= Squat!


Nomad: You obviously don't know what Griffin's arguments were or you would have offered them by now.

Why should I doubt Griffin? Give me one good reason.

Nomad: You are clearly not interested in discussing this topic, yet you persist in hurling abuse at Kim, his findings, and tell us that scholars disagree with him.

Young Kyu Kim is an unknown. That is a fact. Yet, you accept his opinions over all others. Why is that, Nomad?

Nomad: I already knew all of this, but what I find more and more astonishing is that no one appears willing to put these arguments out in public.

Have you ever considered the possibility that no one considers them worth trifling with?

Nomad: Tell us what they are, don't keep telling us that scholars think Kim is wrong, tell us WHY they think that he is wrong.

I don't trust the OPINIONS of those who have no credentials. Especially, when those OPINIONS are directly opposed by ALL scholars. Why do you accept Kim's OPINIONS, Nomad?

Nomad: As for you questioning Cary and Scullard, you must be joking.

No. I just don't take your or their word for anything. Are you joking?

Nomad: A History of Rome : Down to the Reign of Constantine is considered to be among the leading secular histories on ancient Rome. Try not to be paranoid rodahi, and deal with the arguments. Questioning the sources without offering rebuttals has become your trademark, but is not solid argumentation.

Where is the evidence I asked for, Nomad?

Nomad: Give us the arguments, or withdraw.

You cling to the OPINIONS of an obscure person whose credentials are unknown, and you have the audacity to suggest that I "withdraw." Withdraw from what? What a crock.

rodahi

It has just occurred to me that Nomad has not quoted Kim one single time. Could it be that he has no earthly idea what Kim's OPINIONS are, except through the interpretation of Daniel Wallace? Has Nomad even read Kim's obscure article?

rodahi

Ahh, the problems of dating. What shall we do?

Modern biblical scholarship--and the recent public availability of same--has made a lot of fundamentalist and evangelical believers understandably nervous and so basically, by whatever method (ornate oral theories, marginalized scholarship and creative heremeneutics)pushed them into pushing Mark up to being an eyewitness correspondent("...reporting live from the middle of the Sea of Galilee where we have just seen Jesus walking on water....").

On their own superficial level, this lack of integrity and outright dishonesty is merely to maintain the soothing assurances of simple, pre-modern piety. Of course what is missing is the brilliance, the imagination and the incredible exegetical work done by the early Christians.

In other words, what these modern (dumbo) posters like Nomad, SecWebLurker, Layman and others are maintaining is nothing more or less than a long history of dumb Christians. This is not going to serve faith or history.





[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 30, 2001).]

Hello aikido

Thank you for showing your colours.

As for rodahi, he trusts Griffon, and has not offered what Griffon has to say. I have no idea how to debate against arguments I have not read, so I guess we are about done here.

Thanks again guys.

Nomad (the dumbo)

Nomad

As an outsider reading with interest, the most startling think I have noticed among your and rodahi's posts are:
(1) rodahi claims that Kim is unknown, and the only one of many papyrologists to claim what he does.
(2) He has repeatedly asked you why you believe Kim's claims, rather than what appears to be many other opinions to the contrary.
(3) You refuse to respond to his questions as to why you believe Kim.

Let us assume that all these experts offer only *opinions*. Why would anyone believe a complete unknown in the face of many authorities to the contrary?

I am forced to conclude that you believe him, because not to do so would destroy your faith.

Could you please elaborate on why you do not respond?