quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: I come here for debates and discussions rodahi.
rodahi: You come here to apologize for your belief system and contradict yourself over and over doing it.


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

Nomad: Betraying your biases again rodahi? How unfreethinking of you?

What "biases," Nomad?


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


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

Nomad: Yep. Read my threads.

I have read your commentary. That is what prompted me to ask, "Really?"

Nomad: Who knows, you might actually learn that some of your beliefs are mistaken.

Not from you, Nomad.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
rodahi: You haven't presented anything, Nomad.


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

Nomad: Of course I have rodahi.

Let's see. You have given the OPINIONS of an unknown commentator. WOW!

rodahi

Hmm... you are still obsessing rodahi, but at least we are making small progress.

I have asked you to offer arguments against Kim's dating of P46 at c. 85AD. You offer the following:

What is Griffin's convincing argument(s)? Telling us that scholars reject Kim's work merely restates your previous argument rodahi, but without actually offering the arguments being used against him you are still appealing to the authority of the scholars you are quoting here.

Don't you see how circular Hurtado's reasoning is here? He is telling us that he thinks the use of the conflated nomina sacra is evidence of 3rd Century dating because there is no evidence of any conflated nomina sacra in any document dated to earlier than the 3rd Century.

Again, none of the arguments being used by Griffin against Kim are offered here. All we have is yet another scholar agreeing that Kim is wrong.

Further, as you pointed out, Hunger and Comfort believe that the document should be dated to the mid-2nd Century, making Hurtado's circular argument for a 3rd Century dating even less persuasive. So, please stick with the core arguments, and stop with the appeals to authorities. I will stipulate that scholars disagree with Kim's findings. I want to know why they do this, then see how solid the arguments really are. After all, we can see that the one argument you have offered here (from Hurtado) is fallacious on the grounds that it is purely circular.

Please try to use your critical thinking skills rodahi, and show us how to treat arguments sceptically.

Now, on the question of does any scholar support Kim's dating I told you that Carsten Thiede does support him. You then moved the goal posts and told me that he is not a real scholar because he is not a professor. Why didn't you tell me that you only consider a person to be a scholar if he teaches?

Finally, I already told you that I know that Wallace rejects Kim's arguments (I do wish you would read my posts more carefully). What I said was that he does not present the arguments that convinced him that Kim was wrong. I want to see the arguments themselves, not the conclusions that others have drawn from those arguments, and I do not think that this is asking too much.

Here is what I will offer rodahi:

Actually present the arguments (and not just the authorities that tell us that they found these still unknown to us arguments) against Kim's findings. Once we see them, we can discuss them, and if they are, in fact, compelling, then I will happily accept the conclusions of the concensus of scholars on this matter and agree that P46 should be dated to the mid to late 2nd Century.

Thank you,

Nomad

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

Nomad: Hmm... you are still obsessing rodahi, but at least we are making small progress.

What kind of "progress" are you interested in, Nomad?

Nomad: I have asked you to offer arguments against Kim's dating of P46 at c. 85AD.

Yes, you did. What specific arguments do you think Kim makes that have not been refuted/rejected?


[b]Nomad: You offer the following:


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


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

Nomad: What is Griffin's convincing argument(s)? Telling us that scholars reject Kim's work merely restates your previous argument rodahi, but without actually offering the arguments being used against him you are still appealing to the authority of the scholars you are quoting here.

You had said no one had refuted Kim's work on palaeological grounds. Griffin clearly has done so. I presented evidence of that fact. You continue to use Kim as an "authority" without stating why. Why do you accept his OPINIONS and not accept those who reject his dating of P46?

rodahi

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

Nomad: Don't you see how circular Hurtado's reasoning is here? He is telling us that he thinks the use of the conflated nomina sacra is evidence of 3rd Century dating because there is no evidence of any conflated nomina sacra in any document dated to earlier than the 3rd Century.

Has the possibility ever occurred to you that ALL MSS containing "conflated nomina sacra" have been dated by ALL palaeographers to be no earlier than the third century?

Nomad: Again, none of the arguments being used by Griffin against Kim are offered here. All we have is yet another scholar agreeing that Kim is wrong.

How specific do the "arguments" have to be?

Nomad: Further, as you pointed out, Hunger and Comfort believe that the document should be dated to the mid-2nd Century

You are mistaken here.
I will repeat Parker's quote: "[Comfort's] rejection of the dates given to 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."
Kim looked at photographic plates of P46. The date of 150 CE, in the quote, applies to P66. My point that Comfort REJECTS Kim's dating of P46 stands.

Nomad: ...making Hurtado's circular argument for a 3rd Century dating even less persuasive.

Obviosly, NOT.

Nomad: So, please stick with the core arguments, and stop with the appeals to authorities.

Let's be perfectly honest, Nomad. You appeal to the authority of Young Kyu Kim's OPINIONS. To my knowledge, he has no professional credentials. He may not be qualified to give a valid opinion on the approximate dating of P46. His ONE brief essay appeared in 1988 in an unknown periodical known only as "Biblica Magazine." NO legitimate scholar agrees with Kim's opinions. Question: Why do you value his opinions so highly, Nomad?

Nomad: I will stipulate that scholars disagree with Kim's findings.

This is true.

Nomad: I want to know why they do this, then see how solid the arguments really are.

You presume to know more than those who disagree with Kim? Has it occurred to you there may be numerous valid reasons why his opinions are ignored by ALL legitimate scholars?

Nomad: After all, we can see that the one argument you have offered here (from Hurtado) is fallacious on the grounds that it is purely circular.

Do you really think this? How naive you are, Nomad. Could it be that Dr. Hurtado is highly perceptive, logical, reasonable, and possessed of a large amount of common sense? Could it also be that his reasons for disagreeing with Kim are not circular in nature at all, but are in fact based on the best available evidence? We know what Dr. Hurtado does for a living. We know where he works. We know NOTHING about Young Kyu Kim. Could it be that NO scholar agrees with Kim for valid reasons?

Nomad: Please try to use your critical thinking skills rodahi, and show us how to treat arguments sceptically.

Use your "critical thinking skill," Nomad.

Nomad: Now, on the question of does any scholar support Kim's dating I told you that Carsten Thiede does support him.

When I asked for a list of scholars who agreed with Kim's conclusions, you gave the following names: Philip W. Comfort, Daniel Wallace, and Carsten Peter Thiede. FACT: Philip W. Comfort and Daniel Wallace REJECT Kim's conclusions. Why did you include their names on your list, Nomad?

Nomad: You then moved the goal posts and told me that he is not a real scholar because he is not a professor. Why didn't you tell me that you only consider a person to be a scholar if he teaches?

I haven't moved anything. You say he is a scholar. Prove it.

rodahi

Nomad: Finally, I already told you that I know that Wallace rejects Kim's arguments (I do wish you would read my posts more carefully).

You brought up his name; I didn't. Thank you for admitting that Daniel Wallace REJECTS Kim's dating of P46.

Nomad: What I said was that he does not present the arguments that convinced him that Kim was wrong.

You used the name Daniel Wallace to imply that he supports Kim.

Nomad: I want to see the arguments themselves, not the conclusions that others have drawn from those arguments, and I do not think that this is asking too much.

This is very interesting, Nomad. You have accepted the conclusions of an obscure person named "Young Kyu Kim," a person whose credentials and livelihood are, to my knowledge, not known. Yet, you refuse to accept the conclusions of ALL the scholars who REJECT Kim's dating of P46. Among these scholars are the following: F. G. Kenyon, U. Wilchen, H. A. Sanders, C. H. Roberts, M. W. Haslam, A. Debrunner, F. Dunand, P.W. Skehan, Bruce Metzger, E. G. Turner, and T. C. Skeat. ALL acknowledged experts. Why have you attached yourself so strongly to the views of Kim, Nomad?

Nomad: Here is what I will offer rodahi:

Actually present the arguments (and not just the authorities that tell us that they found these still unknown to us arguments) against Kim's findings. Once we see them, we can discuss them, and if they are, in fact, compelling, then I will happily accept the conclusions of the concensus of scholars on this matter and agree that P46 should be dated to the mid to late 2nd Century.

I happily accept the consensus of genuine palaeographers with respect to the proper dating of P46. After all, I am not a palaeographer myself. You can accept anyone's opinion you wish, Nomad, even the opinion of an unknown.

By the way, P46 is currently dated to circa 200 CE, not "mid 2nd century."

rodahi

A general comment (copied from a previous post I made on this board):

Times have changed; 8-track tape players are no longer standard equipment in automobiles and some of us are learning that it's not OK to beat horses anymore.
Archeologists are not immunne to changing times. Classical archeology tended to be concerned with validating whatever version of history has come down to us in texts, although it has sometimes corrected the historical texts that inspired it. At its worst, it has been involved in "cultural looting"--digging up a site and carting off treasures to museum collections. Its worst fault was that it was not critical of its own assumptions.

Processual archeology of the 60s and 70s was involved with prehistorical work and--in the absence of texts--concentrated on material remains. Since texts represent the elite of society, the same archeological techniques for studying hunter-gatherers would be the same for studying factory workers in the Industrial Revolution.

Post-processual archeology is an ideological enterprise done in the post-modern present to serve present interests. It was developed in the early 1980s as a deliberate critical reaction to the processual type.

Biblical scholarship has undergone a similar transformation. First, scholars mined the text for nuggets of verse to uphold their theological points. Next, such devices as "form criticsm" and other "criteria" were discovered and refined to help the scholar focus more on the material, pattern/language aspects of the Bible. Now the best and honest of scholars (as opposed to the apologists who talk the language of biblical historians but act out the methods of the apologists) are moving in concert to the best and honest archeologists. Both attempt to wrestly honestly and closely with the postmodernist idea that the object known is changed by the subject knowing it.

The present must reconstruct the past so each can challenge and change the other by argued evidence in public discussion. By making one's methodology as self-critical and self-conscious as possible and by conducting one's arguments as pointed and precise as can be done, the right questions can be raised and hopefully confronted.

On these boards that may mean, focus, focus, focus and repeat, repeat, repeat until the meaning of one's question is finally made evident in the response it elicits.

That is for sure. It is obvious to me
that our resident fundies do not read what we true infidels write. It's like they are from an era gone by. They go off quoting so-called scholars who are just rudimentary theists. "Show me anywhere in the bible where it says that Jesus' feet were pierced and then I will believe."

Thanks, offa

Thanks for your "piercing" comment. The light in the night sky we see actually emanated from stars light-years in the past. We are living in a different universe now--the post-modern world.

To paraphrase George Bush, "we should leave no fundamentalist behind."

Evidence and faith inform each other.

Offa--
Thank you for your "piercing" comment. We live in a different universe: The starlight we see left the outer reaches of the universe [i]light years[i] ago. The post-modern era is upon us--"all that is solid melts into air." Both evidence and faith must come to a reckoning. To paraphrase George Bush (who stole the original quotation from Reagan), "we must leave no fundamentalist/evangelical behind."

In hopes of not taking this thread any further off topic, I have moved my discussion with rodahi and the dating of P46 to a new thread called (very cleverly) Dating P46.

Nomad