1. Do you think comfort is a better scholar than Morton Smith was? What makes a "good" scholar? Why do you characterize his books as "excellent?" I think Jesus the Magician is an excellent book. Isn't it just a matter of opinion?

2. Not everyone thinks as highly of Comfort's work as you do. See D. C. Parker's review of Comfort and Barret's The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts.

3. Comfort may have changed his mind about Kim since 1990. It seems he has no supporters today.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
BTW, rodahi, you mention the supposed obscurity of the periodical Kim published in, called Biblica, and that you can't seem to find it.

Yes, that is true. It is an obscure periodical.

Ish: Well, scholarly journals are not easy to find, but it is not as obscure as you might think.

Really? I have scoured the internet and not found one reference to it besides Kim's article.

Ish: Open up John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew that you've been reading and turn to page 446. You'll find the Biblica periodical listed in the right hand column almost midway down.

This section of Meier's book is labled on the previous page as "8. Abbreviations of Commonly Used Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials." (w/my emphasis added)

You might want to look at the copyright date of your volume. Mine says 1991. The book was published ten years ago. Many periodicals no longer exist. Also, Biblica is one of 477 "Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials." I don't think the word "common" is appropriate.

Ish: Also, if you haven't found Biblica, where did you read Kim's article? Is it on the internet somewhere? I'd like to read it.

The article is available on the internet. I have not seen the periodical.

Ish: Looking at the ancient texts is my specialty, so I'd love to check out Kim's arguments. Kenyon's work, Chester Beatty Papyri fasciculus III, contains photographs of the complete P46 codex if anyone is interested in the actual text.

Great.

rodahi

Okay.

I've done even more thinking.

Rodahi: We need some counter evidence.

Please ;-)

Ish, I found a single copy of Kim's article here, part of a larger page of theistic articles.

--W@L

Not necessarily. My issue with Smith is my opinion (with scholarly backing) of his questionable integrity. I can bring the thread back up if you like.

You first. This is such a sweeping question that I can only generalize, which is useless.

It is definitely a matter of opinion. I agree. However, I have done enough study to recognize accurate data. I have two of Comfort's books (Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations / Essential Guide to Bible Versions) and have checked much of his data against another more prominent book by Kurt and Barbara Aland (The Text of The New Testament - a must if you're into Textual Criticism). These two books are accurate in my amateur opinion. I don't have and have not read The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, so I cannot comment on it much.

I read the entire review. The first part was complete nit-picking. To give an example, Parker says "It is not clear why P7, dated to III/IV in the Münster Liste (Aland 1994), is excluded, while P13, P18, P37, P72, P78 and P92, which are given the same dating, are included."

1) I must admit that I am not familiar with "the Munster Liste (Aland 1994).

2) p7 is obviously questionable as to date, because whether Aland listed it as III/IV in 1994 or not, earlier he listed it as something quite different - IV/VI(?)!

3) Also, it is kind of hard to transcribe a manuscript that is lost. Even if P7 wasn't lost, it only contains Luke 4:1-2 and is probably not of great use.

4) Finally, while p7 is of questionable date, the other papyri listed are all referred to as III/IV. They easily fall within Comfort's flexible cutoff date of c. 300 as mentioned by Parker.

Again, I have not read the book, so I can't say for sure. However, according to the review, you seem to be right.

Have you read any of Comfort's books Rodahi? What about Aland's?

Also, Rodahi, it would help if you would learn and use UBB code to link to some of these articles. It might also help you in your replies so that you don't include a whole post but only the points you want to address. It's not very hard (after all, I learned it... ) and it's explained under one of the topics above (faq, I think).

Anyway, here is a link to Parker's critique of Comfort's book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, if anyone is interested.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 02, 2001).]

Sheesh. Still no evidence from rodahi, and more ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. Why am I suprised?

Let me make this simple.

Forget Kim. Let's pretend he never existed. Just offer up the arguments used to date P46 to c.200AD and we can go from there.

Nomad

Thanks for the links W@L.

Ish

I have to hand it to you, Nomad. You have managed to hoodwink at least two people without having read the article being discussed. They apparently do not know that all you have offered is a rehash of Daniel Wallace's brief commentary on Kim and P46 (as it relates to Wallace's discussion of 2 Peter.) That's okay. I will present a serious rebuttal in due time. I congratulate the name-caller on his tricks, but this is not over.

rodahi


[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 02, 2001).]

Have you found the periodical?

rodahi

What "counter evidence" would convince you?

rodahi