quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: My experience has been that a book almost always looks compelling until we read some others that offer alternative points of view and interpretations of the data. I do not have sufficient expertise on the Old Testament and ancient Near East history to comment on these findings, but I would be loathe to draw conclusions based on one popular work, no matter who wrote it.

rodahi: This totally contradicts your position with respect to a person named Young Kyu Kim. Remember? His "work" was not even popular. Few even know who he is. Yet, you jumped on his bandwagon with both feet.


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

Nomad: Well, since he remains unrefuted on paleographical grounds to this day, I do not see any reason to disagree with his conclusions.

Apparently, Nomad, you don't understand what a contradiction is. You say, "...I would be loathe to draw conclusions based on one popular work, no matter who wrote it" and yet, you draw conclusions based on the comments of ONE obscure commentator whose essay appeared years ago in an obscure magazine.


Nomad: You have yet to offer a coherent argument against his findings that is actually based on the science of papyrology or paleography. Have you found such an argument published yet? If so, please offer it. The thread on Redating the New Testament is still active.

This has nothing to do with the contradcitory nature of your commentary. BTW, the idea of "Redating the New Testament" is a DEAD issue. It has not been redated by anyone other than yourself. Read the opinions of someone, anyone, other than Young Kyu Kim, and you will understand what I mean.

Nomad: Just curious, but you aren't an actual masochist are you rodahi? I keep wondering why you want to bring up these past thrashings.

You haven't "thrashed" anyone, Nomad, except in your wild imagination. Someday you will learn that such comments actually hurt, rather than help, your arguments.

rodahi

Now now rodahi, you are not doing very well here either. The nature of a discussion board is to discuss ideas. You have challenged a conclusion that I have drawn, and supporting statements. So far as we are aware, Kim remains unrefuted on scientific grounds regarding the dating of P46. I find this interesting, and you have not bothered to respond to this challenge.

Let me ask you again. Have you found a valid scientific challenge of Kim's work? If so, please offer it. Then we can discuss it on this discussion board.

Oh dear. Since this is simply a stupid statement (in addition to being patently false), I wonder why you offered it. I offered arguments backed by supports, quotations and sources. You offered exactly nothing. Now, I understand that you wish to keep your faith intact, and this is cool, but if you do not accept my arguments, and think that they are not valid, then you should offer arguments supported by quotations and evidence as to why you think that I am mistaken. Declaring me wrong, and leaving it at that is hardly discussing the issue is it?

BTW, it is alright to have your core beliefs challenged rodahi. It just makes you examine them again and find out how solid those beliefs are. If you have no arguments to make in your support of a late dating for the Gospels, that is fine. Just remember that you are doing this without actually stepping forward and presenting your case.

You mean like Daniel Wallace? I offered his thoughts in the matter, just as you did. Sadly you did not present his full comments in the matter. Perhaps you would care to comment on this ommission on your part.

I come here for debates and discussions rodahi. I offer arguments, evidence and supports. I quote sources and make sure that others know where I got my information. Since you have done nothing but complain about me doing this, perhaps you should reevaluate what it is you hope to achieve on these boards. If it is to prove that I or others are wrong, try to prove it. Asserting it does not do much except play to a friendly crowd.

I have hoped for better from you.

Nomad

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: You have yet to offer a coherent argument against his findings that is actually based on the science of papyrology or paleography. Have you found such an argument published yet? If so, please offer it. The thread on Redating the New Testament is still active.

rodahi: This has nothing to do with the contradictory nature of your commentary.


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

Nomad: Now now rodahi, you are not doing very well here either.

Now, now, Nomad, I am doing just fine here.

Nomad: The nature of a discussion board is to discuss ideas.

Sure it is, but you have pulled one of your famous "bait and switch" routines. The issue is your contradiction, not another wasted effort on your part to prove portions of the NT should be redated.

Nomad: You have challenged a conclusion that I have drawn, and supporting statements.

Yes, I have. You said you would be loathe to seriously consider the opinions/conclusions of just ONE person. And, yet, that is precisely what you have done with the obscure commentator known as Young Kyu Kim.

Nomad: So far as we are aware, Kim remains unrefuted on scientific grounds regarding the dating of P46. I find this interesting, and you have not bothered to respond to this challenge.

No scholar agrees with his opinions.

Nomad: Let me ask you again. Have you found a valid scientific challenge of Kim's work? If so, please offer it. Then we can discuss it on this discussion board.

I repeat: No scholar agrees with his opinions.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, the idea of "Redating the New Testament" is a DEAD issue. It has not been redated by anyone other than yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Oh dear. Since this is simply a stupid statement (in addition to being patently false), I wonder why you offered it.

If is truly is "stupid," Nomad, present the names of all the scholars who agree with Young Kyu Kim's conclusions.

Nomad: I offered arguments backed by supports, quotations and sources. You offered exactly nothing.

I ask you again, Nomad, present the names of scholars who agree with the conclusions reached by Young Kyu Kim.

Nomad: Now, I understand that you wish to keep your faith intact, and this is cool, but if you do not accept my arguments, and think that they are not valid, then you should offer arguments supported by quotations and evidence as to why you think that I am mistaken.

Just present the names of scholars who agree with Kim. It is a simple request, Nomad.

Nomad: Declaring me wrong, and leaving it at that is hardly discussing the issue is it?

There is no issue, Nomad.

Nomad: BTW, it is alright to have your core beliefs challenged rodahi.

You wouldn't have the foggiest notion of what my "core" beliefs are.

Nomad: It just makes you examine them again and find out how solid those beliefs are. If you have no arguments to make in your support of a late dating for the Gospels, that is fine. Just remember that you are doing this without actually stepping forward and presenting your case.

Just present a list of scholars who agree with Kim. It is a simple request. Surely, that is not to much to ask.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the opinions of someone, anyone, other than Young Kyu Kim, and you will understand what I mean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: You mean like Daniel Wallace?

Sure! Does he agree with the conclusions reached by ONE obscure commentator named Young Kyu Kim?

Nomad: I offered his thoughts in the matter, just as you did. Sadly you did not present his full comments in the matter. Perhaps you would care to comment on this ommission on your part.

There is nothing "sad" about the issue. Present ONE scholar who agrees with the conclusions of Kim.

Nomad: I come here for debates and discussions rodahi.

You come here to apologize for your belief system and contradict yourself over and over doing it.

Nomad: I offer arguments, evidence and supports. I quote sources and make sure that others know where I got my information.

Really?

Nomad: Since you have done nothing but complain about me doing this, perhaps you should reevaluate what it is you hope to achieve on these boards.

People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks, Nomad. If you need help figuring this one out, let me know.

Nomad: If it is to prove that I or others are wrong, try to prove it. Asserting it does not do much except play to a friendly crowd.

You haven't presented anything, Nomad.

Nomad: I have hoped for better from you.

I gave up on you a long time ago.

rodahi

Time to see if I can get rodahi on topic here.

Of course it does rodahi. Pay attention. Kim's findings are unrefuted by sciencific methodology. Here is the quote again (from Redating the books of the New Testament:

”[S]ome manuscripts have been receiving earlier dates. For example, the Pauline codex P46 has been redated by (Young-Kyu) Kim to ca. A.D. 85. To this day, Kim’s early dating of P46 to the later part of the first century has not been challenged on palaeographical grounds.”
Quest for the Original Text, by P.W. Comfort, pg. 31

Now, we also know that C. Carsten Thiede (a papyrologist and scholar BTW ) agrees with Kim. So does Comfort. Finally, Daniel Wallace admits that he has never heard a convincing argument put forward against Kim's work, except by an unnamed and unpublished doctrinal candidate he heard once. This is not encouraging rodahi, although your appeals to authority in the matter are interesting. Your faith is clearly intact.

By this I assume that you will not offer a defence of a traditional dating of the Gospels. Again, your faith is intact, but it does not really go very far in offering a discussion or debate on these boards, does it? Believe it or not, I had expected better from you rodahi.

Pay attention please. Challenge away, but not just through appeals to scholarly concensus and authority. Give us their arguments that refute Kim. After all, it is possible for one person to be right isn't it? Is this not especially true when looking at questions of science? (See how we learn here? ).

This is known as an appeal to authority. What is their reasoning, arguments, and supporting scientific evidence? Try to think beyond your faith rodahi.

Translation: "No, I, rodahi, have not yet found any scientific evidence to refute Kim."

It is alright to say this rodahi.

I think you need to reread your first quote rodahi. You said that "It (the New Testament) has not been redated by anyone other than yourself." Since this is obviously false, and I can offer plenty of scholars to support an earlier dating of the Gospels, then what you said was stupid.

As an aside, I have offered a scholar that supports Kim, so I hope you can focus on the real questions that you raise yourself.

Done. And you are obsessing again. Now, you said that no one dates the Gospels as earlier than the traditional dates commonly ascribed to them. You know that this is false, just admit it. It won't hurt. I promise.

And I have done this. Now, will you support your own outrageous and erroneous statements, or withdraw them? It is a simple choice.

Of course I do. I read your posts, and I assume that you tell us what you believe. One is that not one scholar supports Kim in his findings on P46. I have shown that this is an incorrect belief. You also believe that no one has redated the Gospels to an earlier date than the range of 70-95AD most commonly used. I have challenged this, and you have failed to defend your position. If you do not wish to defend your beliefs, that is fine, but I just want to make sure you realize that you are doing this.

He agrees that no one has presented papyrological or palaeographical arguments against Kim. Since that was my point, then what is your problem? Again, we are free to rely upon authorities like Wallace, but we must also accept that they might be wrong. Can you do this? For myself, if there is good scientific evidence to refute Kim, then I would like to see it. I assume you have looked for such evidence and not found it. If you have not, then you cling to your faith well, but that is what it is. (BTW, faith is not always a bad thing, so I will not hold this against you).

Done.

Betraying your biases again rodahi? How unfreethinking of you?

Yep. Read my threads. Who knows, you might actually learn that some of your beliefs are mistaken.

Of course I have rodahi. And the fact that you continue to not do this is disappointing, but part of a pattern I have seen from you.

Salute mon ami.

Nomad

sentinel00, I really can't go much deeper than I have. I must admit that I have only skimmed through the book at the bookstore myself.

Dever's problems with The Bible Unearthed are not quite so surface as what you are presenting. It is more of a foundational problem.

Regardless, I am familiar with the longstanding scholarly feud (and sometimes mutual animosity) between Dever and Finkelstein. If you can find the BAR article I mentioned above, I think you would find it interesting because it deals with the same problems that he sees in The Bible Unearthed.

I'm not trying to be smart-alec, but I don't really see the problem with these two statements. They don't necessarily seem mutually exclusive to me... But then it is late.

Oh well, I don't doubt that Dever's rhetoric could stand to be tuned down a notch, but then again, so could Carrier's (and possibly Finkelstein's in their running feud)...

Ish

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Time to see if I can get rodahi on topic here.

You said you would be loathe to seriously consider the opinions/conclusions of just ONE person. And, yet, that is precisely what you have done with the obscure commentator known as Young Kyu Kim. You continue to contradict yourself, Nomad.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: You have yet to offer a coherent argument against his (Kim's) findings that is actually based on the science of papyrology or paleography. Have you found such an argument published yet? If so, please offer it. The thread on Redating the New Testament is still active.

rodahi: This has nothing to do with the contradictory nature of your commentary.


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

Nomad: Of course it does rodahi. Pay attention. Kim's findings are unrefuted by sciencific methodology.

You haven't kept up with current scholarship.

According to Professor Jeff Cate, Bruce W. Griffin delivered a paper, "The Palaeographical Dating of P-46" at the 1996 SBL annual meeting in New Orleans. Dr. Cate states Griffin gave a "very well-argued presentation" [in favor of an early third century dating]. L. W. Hurtado confirms Cate's assessment: "Yes, Griffin's paper on the palaeography of P46 was very persuasive, showing strong reasons for the common dating (early 3rd Cent.). An additional factor I pointed out in the SBL discussion of Griffin's paper is the form of the nomina sacra spelling of Iesous (IHS), which is probably best understood as a conflation form of the earlier practice of suspended spelling (IH) and the contraction spelling (IS). This conflation form is to my knowledge otherwise attested in mss no earlier than very early 3rd. cent."

Jeff Cate has a doctorate and is Associate Professor of Christian Studies at California Baptist University, Riverside, California.

L.W. Hurtado is a Professor at the University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Nomad: Here is the quote again (from Redating the books of the New Testament:

”[S]ome manuscripts have been receiving earlier dates. For example, the Pauline codex P46 has been redated by (Young-Kyu) Kim to ca. A.D. 85. To this day, Kim’s early dating of P46 to the later part of the first century has not been challenged on palaeographical grounds.”
Quest for the Original Text, by P.W. Comfort, pg. 31

Those of us who have read Eyewitness to Jesus by Carsten Peter Thiede, MUST suspect that you took this quote directly from Thiede's book, and not from a book by Comfort. (This precise quote is on pp. 70-71.) Apparently, it does not accurately reflect Philip W. Comfort's current position.

As a matter of fact, Comfort REJECTS, rather than agrees with, the dates Kim assigns to P46. According to D.C. Parker, in a review of Comfort's 1999 book The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, "[Comfort's] rejection of the dates given p46 by Kim and to p4/64/67 by Thiede, and his opinion of Hunger's dating of p66 at 150 show him to be properly cautious."

D.C. Parker is a Reader in NT Textual Criticism and Palaeography, Department of Theology, University of Birmingham.

Nomad: Now, we also know that C. Carsten Thiede (a papyrologist and scholar BTW ) agrees with Kim.

Carsten Peter Thiede may agree with Kim's dating of P46, but I don't think Thiede qualifies as a scholar. Would you provide his credentials and state where he is a professor?

Nomad: So does Comfort.

Refuted. See above.

Nomad: Finally, Daniel Wallace admits that he has never heard a convincing argument put forward against Kim's work, except by an unnamed and unpublished doctrinal candidate he heard once.

Daniel Wallace DOES NOT agree with Kim's dating of P46. Why is that, Nomad?

Nomad: This is not encouraging rodahi, although your appeals to authority in the matter are interesting.

You seem confused, Nomad. You don't "appeal to authority?" What do you think the obscure Young Kyu Kim is?

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 26, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: You have challenged a conclusion that I have drawn, and supporting statements.
rodahi: Yes, I have. You said you would be loathe to seriously consider the opinions/conclusions of just ONE person. And, yet, that is precisely what you have done with the obscure commentator known as Young Kyu Kim.


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

Nomad: Pay attention please.

Deal with your contradiction, Nomad. It won't go away.

Nomad: Challenge away, but not just through appeals to scholarly concensus and authority. Give us their arguments that refute Kim.

You appeal to the "authority" of the unknown Young Kyu Kim. I appeal to the authority of virtually every other scholar, conservative to liberal to agnostic.

Nomad: After all, it is possible for one person to be right isn't it? Is this not especially true when looking at questions of science? (See how we learn here? ).

If Young Kyu Kim is "right," then why hasn't he convinced any real scholar, Nomad? Could it be that his conclusions are based on faulty observations and total disregard of other than palaeographic evidence? That is what is being said of Kim's views.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: So far as we are aware, Kim remains unrefuted on scientific grounds regarding the dating of P46. I find this interesting, and you have not bothered to respond to this challenge.
rodahi: No scholar agrees with his opinions.


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

Nomad: This is known as an appeal to authority. What is their reasoning, arguments, and supporting scientific evidence?

Scholars disagree with Kim's dating of P46 on palaeographic grounds, textual evidence, and the highly improbable sequence of events that must have taken place in order to have some of Paul's letters (and the Letter to the Hebrews) be copied from copies and still appear in a codex dating to 85 CE.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Let me ask you again. Have you found a valid scientific challenge of Kim's work? If so, please offer it. Then we can discuss it on this discussion board.
rodahi: I repeat: No scholar agrees with his opinions.


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

Nomad: Translation: "No, I, rodahi, have not yet found any scientific evidence to refute Kim."

It is alright to say this rodahi.

You mention "scientific evidence." What are you talking about? You have nothing more than the OPINIONS of ONE obscure commentator.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rodahi: BTW, the idea of "Redating the New Testament" is a DEAD issue. It has not been redated by anyone other than yourself.
Nomad: Oh dear. Since this is simply a stupid statement (in addition to being patently false), I wonder why you offered it.

rodahi: If is truly is "stupid," Nomad, present the names of all the scholars who agree with Young Kyu Kim's conclusions.


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

Nomad: I think you need to reread your first quote rodahi. You said that "It (the New Testament) has not been redated by anyone other than yourself." Since this is obviously false, and I can offer plenty of scholars to support an earlier dating of the Gospels, then what you said was stupid.

The NT has NOT been redated by anyone, Nomad. Two or three commentators have suggested the possibility that the dating of the narratives and letters of Paul should be earlier than what scholarly consensus holds. The ONLY person who has "redated" the NT is YOU.

Nomad: As an aside, I have offered a scholar that supports Kim, so I hope you can focus on the real questions that you raise yourself.

Again, Nomad, give a list of scholars who agree with Kim's dating of P46. Please don't make the mistake of giving the names of Philip W. Comfort or Daniel Wallace. They DISAGREE with Kim's dates. Further, you haven't proven that Carsten Peter Thiede is a scholar.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 26, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: I offered arguments backed by supports, quotations and sources. You offered exactly nothing.
rodahi: I ask you again, Nomad, present the names of scholars who agree with the conclusions reached by Young Kyu Kim.


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

Nomad: Done.

Not done.

Nomad: And you are obsessing again. Now, you said that no one dates the Gospels as earlier than the traditional dates commonly ascribed to them. You know that this is false, just admit it. It won't hurt. I promise.

The only person who has done any "redating" is you, Nomad. Everyone else has put forth a theory.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Now, I understand that you wish to keep your faith intact, and this is cool, but if you do not accept my arguments, and think that they are not valid, then you should offer arguments supported by quotations and evidence as to why you think that I am mistaken.
rodahi: Just present the names of scholars who agree with Kim. It is a simple request, Nomad.


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

Nomad: And I have done this.

No. You have give the names of three men. Two DISAGREE with Kim's dating of P46, and the other man is not been proven to be a scholar.

Nomad: Now, will you support your own outrageous and erroneous statements, or withdraw them? It is a simple choice.

I haven't made any "outrageous and erroneous statements." You have.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: BTW, it is alright to have your core beliefs challenged rodahi.
rodahi: You wouldn't have the foggiest notion of what my "core" beliefs are.


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

Nomad: Of course I do. I read your posts, and I assume that you tell us what you believe. One is that not one scholar supports Kim in his findings on P46. I have shown that this is an incorrect belief.

No, Nomad, you haven't the foggiest notion of what my core beliefs are. Further, you have not presented the name of a single ligetimate scholar who agrees with Kim's dating of P46.

Nomad: You also believe that no one has redated the Gospels to an earlier date than the range of 70-95AD most commonly used.

That is correct. A few men have posited a theory.

Nomad: I have challenged this, and you have failed to defend your position. If you do not wish to defend your beliefs, that is fine, but I just want to make sure you realize that you are doing this.

I have nothing to "defend," Nomad.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rodahi: Read the opinions of someone, anyone, other than Young Kyu Kim, and you will understand what I mean.
Nomad: You mean like Daniel Wallace?

rodahi: Sure! Does he agree with the conclusions reached by ONE obscure commentator named Young Kyu Kim?


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

Nomad: He agrees that no one has presented papyrological or palaeographical arguments against Kim.

In point of fact, Wallace DISAGREES with Kim's dating of P46.

Nomad: Since that was my point, then what is your problem?

You have no "point," and I have no "problem."

Nomad: Again, we are free to rely upon authorities like Wallace, but we must also accept that they might be wrong. Can you do this? For myself, if there is good scientific evidence to refute Kim, then I would like to see it.

Again, you mention "scientific evidence." You have nothing more than the OPINIONS of an obscure commentator.

Nomad: I assume you have looked for such evidence and not found it.

Evidence of WHAT, Nomad?




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: I offered his thoughts in the matter, just as you did. Sadly you did not present his full comments in the matter. Perhaps you would care to comment on this ommission on your part.
rodahi: There is nothing "sad" about the issue. Present ONE scholar who agrees with the conclusions of Kim.


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

Nomad: Done.

Not done.

rodahi