Since rodahi appears to still be engaged in his research, I will wait for his evidence on the dating of p46 to the late 2nd early 3rd centuries AD.

What I will say at this point is that I find the arguments from nomina sacra to be entirely unconvincing. As I noted in an earlier post, papyrologist Colin Roberts theorized that the most probable source for the first use of this method (the abbreviation of Sacred Names like Lord, God, Jesus, ect) would have been the Jerusalem Church pre-70AD, then rejecting a late date on the basis of evident nomina sacra is extremely problematic. Remember that most documents are dated in relation to one another, so when someone (even an expert) says that nothing from the 1st Century contains nomina sacra, therefore no document containing such abbreviations can be considered to be from the 1st Century, he is engaged in circular reasoning.

Evidence that I would find most impressive (either way) would be comparative studies done on MSS that is known with certainty to date to the late 1st Century (an excellent example being documents found at Herculaneum, a site destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius in 79AD), or which are absolutely dated to the early 3rd Century, and cannot possibly be from an earlier time period.

If P46 can be shown to resemble any of these documents, then I think that we can be much more certain of its dating.

Finally, an carbon dating of P46, or other reliable scientific method for dating ancient documents, then the case can be made for either an early or a late date with equal certainty.

I sincerely look forward to rodahi's post.

Peace,

Nomad

P.S. To rodahi: have you written Dr. Wallace? I have not asked him if he remembers the name of the student he listened to on this subject. Was it Griffon or someone else(Or does he recall)?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Since rodahi appears to still be engaged in his research, I will wait for his evidence on the dating of p46 to the late 2nd early 3rd centuries AD.

Fair enough, but you still need to deal with Philip Comfort's evaluation.

Nomad: What I will say at this point is that I find the arguments from nomina sacra to be entirely unconvincing. As I noted in an earlier post, papyrologist Colin Roberts theorized that the most probable source for the first use of this method (the abbreviation of Sacred Names like Lord, God, Jesus, ect) would have been the Jerusalem Church pre-70AD, then rejecting a late date on the basis of evident nomina sacra is extremely problematic. Remember that most documents are dated in relation to one another, so when someone (even an expert) says that nothing from the 1st Century contains nomina sacra, therefore no document containing such abbreviations can be considered to be from the 1st Century, he is engaged in circular reasoning.

You continue to misunderstand what palaeographers have said about nomina sacra and its relation to P46. They DO NOT rule out an early dating of P46 soley BECAUSE it contains extensive and well-developed nomina sacra. They have suggested that P46 should be dated to around 200 CE BECAUSE of its palaeographic characteristics and NOT BECAUSE it contains nomina sacra. It has yet to be proven that a definitively dated extant Christian MS from earlier than the second century CE contains nomina sacra.

Nomad: Evidence that I would find most impressive (either way) would be comparative studies done on MSS that is known with certainty to date to the late 1st Century (an excellent example being documents found at Herculaneum, a site destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius in 79AD), or which are absolutely dated to the early 3rd Century, and cannot possibly be from an earlier time period.

Go back and read what Philip Comfort said about P46.

Nomad: If P46 can be shown to resemble any of these documents, then I think that we can be much more certain of its dating.

According to ALL palaeographers who have examined P46 and similar MSS, the best dating is around 200 CE. Comfort dates P46 to around 150 CE. NO ONE thinks Kim is correct.

Nomad: Finally, an carbon dating of P46, or other reliable scientific method for dating ancient documents, then the case can be made for either an early or a late date with equal certainty.

I have suggested before I would welcome carbon dating. If the correct dating should be 75 CE, then so be it. On the other hand, if the dating of P46 should be 225 CE, then so be it. It cannot be both.

Nomad: P.S. To rodahi: have you written Dr. Wallace? I have not asked him if he remembers the name of the student he listened to on this subject. Was it Griffon or someone else(Or does he recall)?

He alluded to Bruce W. Griffin.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 27, 2001).]

Actually, I can live with Comfort's dating just as easily as I can live with Kim's. What I want to see is the evidence for a late 2nd to early 3rd Century date for P46.

Your final statement here is purely circular reasoning rodahi, and this is why I do not find it convincing. As for the other evidence, when you produce it, I will look at it. If it is convincing, then no problem. I would just like to see what that evidence is first.

I saw it, and as I said, I can live with Comfort's mid-2nd Century dating. I can even live with the traditional 200AD date if the evidence for it is good.

What I do not see, thus far, is defintive dating that tells me that anything earlier than 200AD (or even late 1st Century) is impossible.

I know this. Now I want to know why.

Of course it cannot be both, but if the wisest course of action is to admit that we cannot date this document to anything better than 100-200AD, then we should just admit it, and wait for more evidence to come in.

Alright. But does this mean that he does not recall the exact name with any certainty? (This is not a big issue BTW, I am just curious).

Thanks again rodahi, and I will continue to wait for you to post your evidence. I have more time to examine it now, at least, so that will make a discussion easier.

Nomad

I just wanted to briefly comment that Comfort and Barret have a revised version of their original Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts which was critiqued by D.C. Parker.

Most of Parker's concerns were addressed in this new revision (dots below questionable letters, etc.). In a work of this complexity, it is quite normal for several revisions to be made to correct minor errors and provide transcriptions of new discoveries.

The entire greek text of P46 is given in this book including notes on ancient scribal corrections. Comfort dates P46 to 150 AD in this book. As it now stands, this book is an excellent research tool seeing that I can't run to the library every time I want to refer to the original texts.

Rodahi implies, I believe in disagreement with Kim, that there is a "well-developed" system of Nomina Sacra. Looking at Comfort's text, I'm not sure I necessarily see them as "well-developed". For instance, "Spirit" will be abbreviated in one place (PNS) and completely written out in another (PNEUMATOS).

Rodahi, do you have any text that explains what constitutes a "well-developed" system of Nomina Sacra?

Ish

For the time being, I will just say what I have been saying for months now, virtually all paleographers date P46 to circa 200. I see no good reason to date this MS any earlier. If you can get photographic plates of P46 comparable to what paleographers use or the actual MS, then let me know. Pictures from a mass produced book are not going to give clear evidence and you can speculate all you want.

rodahi

Nomad: Actually, I can live with Comfort's dating just as easily as I can live with Kim's. What I want to see is the evidence for a late 2nd to early 3rd Century date for P46.

When I get it, you will see it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You continue to misunderstand what palaeographers have said about nomina sacra and its relation to P46. They DO NOT rule out an early dating of P46 soley BECAUSE it contains extensive and well-developed nomina sacra. They have suggested that P46 should be dated to around 200 CE BECAUSE of its palaeographic characteristics and NOT BECAUSE it contains nomina sacra. It has yet to be proven that a definitively dated extant Christian MS from earlier than the second century CE contains nomina sacra.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Your final statement here is purely circular reasoning rodahi, and this is why I do not find it convincing.

Please explain WHY you consider my final statement to be an example of circular reasoning.


rodahi

No sweat, and no rush. I can wait, and if your evidence is conclusive, I will say so.

When you say that there are no MS that have been definitively dated to the 1st Century that contain well developed nomina sacra you are merely begging the question. After all, one of the starting assumptions in palaeography is that 1st Century documents do not have well developed nomina sacra. This is not helpful, since the assumption produces the conclusion.

I have already stated that I find Colin Roberts argument for a 1st Century creation of the nomina sacra by the Jewish Christians of the Jerusalem Church to be persuasive, and on this basis, would expect it to have been used in the 1st Century. I have yet to see a solid reason to reject this theory in favour of any other assumption of the origin of the sacred names tradition.

I think what we need is more 1st Century documents that we can examine. Right now there appears to be so little material available to us from this period in time, that conclusive beliefs about what writing conventions may have existed in the 1st Century may well remain very speculative.

As I have said, however, I await your evidence, and if it is convincing, will happily admit it.

Peace,

Nomad

rodahi: Please explain WHY you consider my final statement to be an example of circular reasoning.


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

Nomad: When you say that there are no MS that have been definitively dated to the 1st Century that contain well developed nomina sacra you are merely begging the question. After all, one of the starting assumptions in palaeography is that 1st Century documents do not have well developed nomina sacra. This is not helpful, since the assumption produces the conclusion.

IF the inclusion/non-inclusion of nomina sacra were the only criterion, I would agree with you, but it is not. MSS are dated based on a COMBINATION of numerous factors. According to paleographer/papyrologist Sigrid Peterson, "There are some standards, and there is a desirable descriptive rigor in treating a papyrus or group of papyri. Describing the physical characteristics of the papyri, both the writing and the material, is the conventional way to start. This involves noting the size and determining the side of the sheet which is being used, and whether there are two sides or one which contain writing. For example, if both sides of a sheet are used and the handwriting is the same on both sides, then the document is tentatively identified as a codex. An assessment of the type of document follows, making distinctions, as a rule, between documentary and literary, between business and personal, and between legal and commercial. The papyrologist makes an attempt to locate the place of origin, using all available clues. Such clues may be archaeological context, place references in the text, close comparability in style with documentary papyri whose text fixes the place, the way the material is handled, and other specific characteristics of the piece of papyrus being described."

Eric G. Turner states, "To obtain a more precise result [in dating]...it will be necessary to find a dated or datable handwriting which the piece under examination resembles....Confidence will be strongest when like is compared with like: a documentary hand with another documentary hand, skilful writing with skilful, fast writing with fast. Comparison of book hands with dated documentary hands will be less reliable....For book hands a period of 50 years is the least acceptable spread of time [to suggest, as they are long-lived]. A palaeographer familiar with the material will refuse assent to a precise date allocated to a manuscript simply by comparison with other texts and by no other criterion.
How are 'resemblances' between handwriting to be judged? The first point of similarity to strike an observer will be in the forms of the letters, but taken in isolation this feature is too arbitrary to be trustworthy....The forms of the letters must, as W. Schubert pointed out, be considered in relation to the manner of writing which the help to constitute. The letter-forms chosen by the scribe are, of course, the most important means by which stylization is achieved."

Kim erred by relying too heavily on the letter forms of comparative MSS he had selected. Further, he arbitrarily chose MSS that dated to a time period he DESIRED to put P46 into, and generally ignored others that dated later.

Nomad: I have already stated that I find Colin Roberts argument for a 1st Century creation of the nomina sacra by the Jewish Christians of the Jerusalem Church to be persuasive, and on this basis, would expect it to have been used in the 1st Century. I have yet to see a solid reason to reject this theory in favour of any other assumption of the origin of the sacred names tradition.

BUT, using a comprehensive set of criteria, no definitively dated Christian MSS have been found to date to the first century.

Nomad: I think what we need is more 1st Century documents that we can examine. Right now there appears to be so little material available to us from this period in time, that conclusive beliefs about what writing conventions may have existed in the 1st Century may well remain very speculative.

We have been down this road before. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of extant Greek MSS that date to the first century. These are letters, legal documents, lists, etc. and many of them are internally dated, i.e., they were dated by the writer. These MSS ARE used by palaeographers to help them in dating NT MSS.

Nomad: As I have said, however, I await your evidence, and if it is convincing, will happily admit it.

There is more evidence coming.

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 08, 2001).]