Rodahi, you seem to imply that Christian scholars lack integrity. I believe that most Christian scholars, if we must so divide them, have the scholarly integrity to present conclusions based on the evidence, whether or not that evidence goes against their beliefs. There is always room for something that currently looks bad to turn out good if you believe. There is no reason to fear the data and fudge the conclusions.

Aland is a much better scholar than you have presented him. He has taken the "later" date for many MSS, so I think you've treated him unfairly. As I have said before, he is a big figure in textual criticism today (if not the biggest).

Maybe I'm just wasting my breath again... Scholars will continue seeing the evidence through the somewhat cloudy lense of their own world-views.

I, personally, do not see any reason that Aland's dating of p52 should be wrong and he is an authority.

Ish

Rodahi, you never cease to amaze me. Here you are slandering/accusing of bias, "ALL" (!!!) Christian apologists.
And then by this: "or men and women who merely wish to evaluate all the evidence and date the MSS accordingly?"
you imply that you have no bias and merely wish to evaluate the evidence and date the MSS accordingly (unlike ALL the Christian apologists of course).

But you can't help demonstrating your true nature by saying things like:
"Fortunately, there are other opinions. P52 may date as late as 150 CE, or later."
Fortunately for who? Clearly fortunately for you. Do you have a vested interest in dating things later? It seems you would like to see all NT manuscripts (and subsequently the books themselves) dated as late as possible.
Throughout this thread and indeed any thread on which I have seen you posting on this subject you are always wanting to date everything as late any single scholar is willing to take it.
"The NT narrative "John" may have been written as late as 150 CE, or later."
This is just one more example.

I find it completely ironic that in one breath you can be accusing Christian scholars of bias for "early" (ie majority accepted) dating and in the next breath be arguing for the latest possible date. Take the log out of your own eye first Rodahi.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
ALL Christian apologists (K & B Aland, Philip Comfort, et al) want to date EVERY MS as early as possible. BTW, WHO makes up the "consensus"--men and women who have a vested interest in an early dating, or men and women who merely wish to evaluate all the evidence and date the MSS accordingly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Rodahi, you seem to imply that Christian scholars lack integrity.

Some Christian scholars have integrity and some don't.

Ish: I believe that most Christian scholars, if we must so divide them, have the scholarly integrity to present conclusions based on the evidence, whether or not that evidence goes against their beliefs. There is always room for something that currently looks bad to turn out good if you believe.

"If you believe????" If you believe what, Ish?

Ish: There is no reason to fear the data and fudge the conclusions.

Many Christian apologists have been doing it for years.

Ish: Aland is a much better scholar than you have presented him. He has taken the "later" date for many MSS, so I think you've treated him unfairly.

I have treated no one "unfairly."

Ish: As I have said before, he is a big figure in textual criticism today (if not the biggest).

With some, not with others.

Ish: Maybe I'm just wasting my breath again... Scholars will continue seeing the evidence through the somewhat cloudy lense of their own world-views.

And some scholars will try to use the scientific approach. They will let the evidence guide them, rather than the other way around.

Ish: I, personally, do not see any reason that Aland's dating of p52 should be wrong and he is an authority.


I see no good reason for dating P52 earlier than 150 CE.

rodahi

Tercel: Rodahi, you never cease to amaze me.

Whoop de doo!

Tercel: Here you are slandering/accusing of bias, "ALL" (!!!) Christian apologists.
And then by this: "or men and women who merely wish to evaluate all the evidence and date the MSS accordingly?"

How do you define "Christian apologist?"

Tercel: you imply that you have no bias and merely wish to evaluate the evidence and date the MSS accordingly (unlike ALL the Christian apologists of course).

I am not implying anything. I am stating it outright! My bias is precisely this: I wish to find out what happened in history.

[b]Tercel: But you can't help demonstrating your true nature by saying things like:
"Fortunately, there are other opinions. P52 may date as late as 150 CE, or later."

Tercel: Fortunately for who?

Fortunately for all who are not Christian apologists. Fortunately for all who merely wish to know what the correct date is.

Tercel: Clearly fortunately for you.

Nope. If carbon dating conclusively dated P52 to 80 CE, I would be the first to acknowledge that fact. If carbon dating conclusively dated P52 to 180 CE, I would be the first to acknowledge that fact. I do not wish to date P52 early or late; I wish to date it CORRECTLY. I don't think you will ever understand this.

Tercel: Do you have a vested interest in dating things later?

See above.

Tercel: It seems you would like to see all NT manuscripts (and subsequently the books themselves) dated as late as possible.

You are incorrect. I would like to see ALL NT MSS dated correctly, early or late.

Tercel: Throughout this thread and indeed any thread on which I have seen you posting on this subject you are always wanting to date everything as late any single scholar is willing to take it.

Nope. I have merely countered those who wish to date everything as early as possible.

rodahi: "The NT narrative "John" may have been written as late as 150 CE, or later."

This is just one more example.

rodahi: I take the scientific approach, Tercel.

Tercel: I find it completely ironic that in one breath you can be accusing Christian scholars of bias for "early" (ie majority accepted) dating and in the next breath be arguing for the latest possible date. Take the log out of your own eye first Rodahi.

The FACT is, Tercel, no one knows when to date P52. But, just because a few Christian scholars date it to 125 CE, that doesn't make it so, and I merely pointed out that fact. Take off your Christian rose-colored glasses, Tercel.

rodahi

Which ones do not?

Perhaps I should have said "if one believes"? Since your question seems rather rhetorical, I see no reason for further response.

Which ones? Do you have proof?

A highly recommended approach, if I do say so myself, not contradicted by my statement...

Sources? Please give some backing for this assertion. I gave mine.

Personally, this seems like an incredibly late dating given the findings of the majority of textual scholars.

Perhaps you would accept the findings. Or would you be like Thiering with the Dead Sea Scrolls, refuting the carbon-dating in any way possible to hold onto her theories? Non-Christians are biased too, Rodahi...

Perhaps I don't understand you. Do you deny even the possibility of these early datings?

I realize the past few statements were to Tercel, but I am interested in them.

This last statement bothers me for you. You state unequivocally that "no one knows when to date p52." I will bend and say that I hope you mean that no one can nail down the exact date. However, some do know when to date p52 and give a range of possible paleographical dates within which it must reside. Denying this is to deny paleography alltogether. Perhaps, then, we can date the papyri to any time we wish...

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 27, 2001).]

I'd just like to point out that carbon dating can only give the date at which the animal that provided the skin or the plant that provided the fibre was last alive, this does nothing to fix the time at which the writing was done. (apart fom give an earliest possible date of course, it is damn hard to write on a living goat, cow or papyrus leaf.)

Amen-Moses

Rodahi,
Good. I deliberately understated your position to try to avoid having you argue that you had never said you weren't biased.

Nice, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You have said you have no bias. But you say that it is fortunate that not everyone gives an earlier dating. This simply gives the game away Rodahi. For you to say that any dating is fortunate it must clearly mean that it is fitting in with what you would like to be true, or is at least not opposed to it. Very clearly you are showing that you do have something you would like to be true: You want early manuscripts dated as late as possible and you want to subsequently date the Gospels as late as possible. In discussion of the dating of every single early manuscript you always take the latest possible end and remind us all that it is possible that the Gospel only reached its complete form even later.
In short:
You would far prefer a late dating. Thus you are biased.
I doubt there is anyone short of the most hardened atheists who could read your posts without recognising this.
Personally, I would not care whether P52 was dated to the first century or to the forth. That is what being un-biased means. However even I am biased somewhat - I would not want it dated prior to 30AD or so .


You would prefer the correct date of all NT MSS to be as late as possible, would you not? But what defines a "correct date"? You mentioned above your preference for carbon dating, and while I am not familiar with its use specifically in textual dating I'm not sure that you could hope to get anything more accurate than the dates you already have. If it is such an accurate tool in dating MSS why hasn't it already been used?
Back to the point, the argument is not about "correct dates" - which I'm sure everyone would love to have if they were possible to find out - it is about dating the MSS as accurately as is humanly possible. Any desire for a certain date (yours being as late as possible) is simply bias and only removes the possibility of getting the most objectively accurate date.

The scientific approach demands that you date everything as late as possible does it?

From what Ish quoted earlier what you're saying doesn't quite seem to be true. They seem to know to date it to 125 +/- 25 AD.
the date of "about 125" assigned to it by the leading papyrologists. Although "about 125" allows for a leeway of about 25 years on either side, the consensus has come in recent years to regard 125 as representing the later limit

-Tercel

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited June 27, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
I see no good reason for dating p52 earlier than 150 CE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Sources? Please give some backing for this assertion. I gave mine.

What assertion?

Ish: Personally, this seems like an incredibly late dating given the findings of the majority of textual scholars.

Incredibly late??????? Did you know that paleography is more art than science.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
If carbon dating conclusively dated P52 to 80 CE, I would be the first to acknowledge that fact. If carbon dating conclusively dated P52 to 180 CE, I would be the first to acknowledge that fact. I do not wish to date P52 early or late; I wish to date it CORRECTLY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Perhaps you would accept the findings.

I didn't say "perhaps." I said I would accept the findings.

Ish: Or would you be like Thiering with the Dead Sea Scrolls, refuting the carbon-dating in any way possible to hold onto her theories? Non-Christians are biased too, Rodahi...

I wonder if you are related to Barbara Thiering, Ish? You seem to have some of her tendencies, i.e., believing in the absurd with little or no evidentiary support. You can shout from the rooftops "Non-Christians are biased, too, rodahi," but it doesn't change anything. There are some men and women who just want to know what happened in history.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
I have merely countered those who wish to date everything as early as possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Perhaps I don't understand you.

That is an understatement.

Ish: Do you deny even the possibility of these early datings?

I don't "deny" anything, Ish. Did you read what I said about carbon dating P52?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
The FACT is, Tercel, no one knows when to date P52. But, just because a few Christian scholars date it to 125 CE, that doesn't make it so, and I merely pointed out that fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: I realize the past few statements were to Tercel, but I am interested in them.

This last statement bothers me for you.

I suggest that you never let anything bother you for me.

Ish: You state unequivocally that "no one knows when to date p52."

Quote a genuine paleographer who will precisely date P52. Next, ask him if he/she thinks he/she could be wrong.

Ish: I will bend and say that I hope you mean that no one can nail down the exact date. However, some do know when to date p52 and give a range of possible paleographical dates within which it must reside.

P52 could date anywhere from 100 CE to 150 CE, or later. I don't consider that precise.

Ish: Denying this is to deny paleography alltogether. Perhaps, then, we can date the papyri to any time we wish...

This is an example of a sweeping generalization fallacy.

rodahi

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
[b]Rodahi,
Tercel: Good. I deliberately understated your position to try to avoid having you argue that you had never said you weren't biased.

I have been saying the same thing for months.

Tercel: But you can't help demonstrating your true nature by saying things like:
"Fortunately, there are other opinions. P52 may date as late as 150 CE, or later."
Fortunately for who?
Clearly fortunately for you.

Rodahi: Nope. If carbon dating conclusively dated P52 to 80 CE, I would be the first to acknowledge that fact. If carbon dating conclusively dated P52 to 180 CE, I would be the first to acknowledge that fact. I do not wish to date P52 early or late; I wish to date it CORRECTLY. I don't think you will ever understand this.

Tercel: Nice, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You have said you have no bias.

No, that is the position you wish I would take. I admitted my bias above.

Tercel: But you say that it is fortunate that not everyone gives an earlier dating.

That is not what I said. I said that is fortunate that there are others who disagree with Christian apologists who wish to date ALL MSS early. There are some men and women with scientific minds who merely wish to get the dating CORRECT. That is fortunate.

Tercel: This simply gives the game away Rodahi. For you to say that any dating is fortunate it must clearly mean that it is fitting in with what you would like to be true, or is at least not opposed to it.

Nope. I merely wish for NT MSS to be dated CORRECTLY. Apparently, you don't read everything I post.

Tercel: Very clearly you are showing that you do have something you would like to be true: You want early manuscripts dated as late as possible and you want to subsequently date the Gospels as late as possible.

Nope. That is what you wish me to show. I have said repeatedly that I would like to see the MSS dated CORRECTLY, early or late.

Tercel: In discussion of the dating of every single early manuscript you always take the latest possible end and remind us all that it is possible that the Gospel only reached its complete form even later.

Incorrect. There is a paleographic range for dated MSS. Someone needs to point out that range. Christian apologists do not always do so.

Tercel: In short:
You would far prefer a late dating. Thus you are biased.

In short: I merely wish the dating to be CORRECT. Call it bias or anything you like.

Tercel: I doubt there is anyone short of the most hardened atheists who could read your posts without recognising this.

Your thoughts are not always consistent with reality, Tercel.


Tercel: Personally, I would not care whether P52 was dated to the first century or to the forth.

That is why I said I would accept conclusive (as a hypothetical) carbon dating, regardless
of the date given to P52. Why do you continue to ignore this fact, Tercel.

Tercel: That is what being un-biased means. However even I am biased somewhat - I would not want it dated prior to 30AD or so .

I don't care when it is dated, as long as it is dated CORRECTLY. I will repeat this as many times as I have to, to get you to see it.


[QUOTE]Tercel: It seems you would like to see all NT manuscripts (and subsequently the books themselves) dated as late as possible.

Rodahi: You are incorrect. I would like to see ALL NT MSS dated correctly, early or late.

Tercel: You would prefer the correct date of all NT MSS to be as late as possible, would you not?

Nope. I would like to see ALL NT MSS dated correctly, early or late.

Tercel: But what defines a "correct date"? You mentioned above your preference for carbon dating, and while I am not familiar with its use specifically in textual dating

Then why argue from ignorance?

Tercel: I'm not sure that you could hope to get anything more accurate than the dates you already have.

Like you said, you aren't sure.

[b]Tercel: If it is such an accurate tool in dating MSS why hasn't it already been used?[/b

There are several good reasons. Do the research.


Tercel: Back to the point, the argument is not about "correct dates" - which I'm sure everyone would love to have if they were possible to find out - it is about dating the MSS as accurately as is humanly possible.

HUMANS use carbon dating and other methods.

Tercel: Any desire for a certain date (yours being as late as possible)

Nope. I would like to see ALL NT MSS dated correctly, early or late.

Tercel: is simply bias and only removes the possibility of getting the most objectively accurate date.

So thinks a biased Christian apologist.

[QUOTE]rodahi: "The NT narrative "John" may have been written as late as 150 CE, or later."

Tercel: This is just one more example.

This is an example of a fact, Tercel. Here is another one: The NT narrative "John" may have been written before 150 CE.

rodahi: I take the scientific approach, Tercel.

Tercel: The scientific approach demands that you date everything as late as possible does it?

Nope. I would like to see ALL NT MSS dated correctly, early or late.


[QUOTE]Tercel: I find it completely ironic that in one breath you can be accusing Christian scholars of bias for "early" (ie majority accepted) dating and in the next breath be arguing for the latest possible date. Take the log out of your own eye first Rodahi.

The FACT is, Tercel, no one knows when to date P52.

Tercel: From what Ish quoted earlier what you're saying doesn't quite seem to be true. They seem to know to date it to 125 +/- 25 AD.

First of all, don't believe everything Ish has to say. Second, when you wish to be convincing, don't use the word "they."

Tercel: the date of "about 125" assigned to it by the leading papyrologists. Although "about 125" allows for a leeway of about 25 years on either side, the consensus has come in recent years to regard 125 as representing the later limit

P52 could date as late as 150 CE, or later.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 28, 2001).]

Rodahi, are you indirectly calling me a liar?!

Let me say that Tercel was merely referring to my quotation of the Alands, so it's not what I said that upsets your world so much as to make you imply that I am a liar.

As if that isn't enough, you continually imply that many Christian scholars lack integrity. However, when I ask you to prove it by listing them and why you think they are, you flat ignore the challenge. You're walking the fine line of discrimination and bigotry there, Rodahi...

Next, I have presented a period of time that I believe is correct (with support I might add) for the dating of p52. According to Metzger, "such eminent paleographers as Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, W. Schubart, Sir Harold I. Bell, Adolf Deissmann, Ulrich Wilcken, and W.H.P. Hatch have all expressed themselves in agreement" with C.H. Roberts in dating p52 in the first half of the second century. Yet, you insist on saying that you can see no reason for dating p52 "earlier than 150 A.D." Again, sources please?

Finally, when you can't answer my questions or provide your own substance, are ad hominems all you can resort to? Your erroneous and offensive suggestion that I am related to Barbara Thiering is almost as low as your attempt to trick me into looking at a pornography website that you linked to (you should have kicked yourself off the SecWeb for that one, Mr. Moderator). It seems that you are the one lacking integrity. Please show a little more maturity and knowledge in the future, Rodahi. Until then, go sit in the corner. I think this will be my last post in your direction.

Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo...
Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 28, 2001).]