Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-10-2006, 03:11 PM

This thread has been split from here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=170618&page=4

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

I'm afraid you are going to get nowhere on this with Bede. Those who have access to such documents (and have taken one course in papyrology during their university sojourn) are considered experts in the field.

I just had a conversation on this topic over at alt.atheism (where your name was impugned -- not by me too). I'm sure Bede would concur along with Roger Pierce (one of the participants) and my main antagonist that if radio carbon dating was done for fragment in the third and fourth centuries BCE and for fragments of the sixth through eighth centuries CE and overlapped those dates of the paleographer's estimates with a 65% confidence level that was accurate enough. That was evidence enough.

To point out that there were no confirming evidence for the paleographer's assertions, it took a long drawn out discussion for the apologists to agree but then retort with So What?

If an "expert" in a field proclaims something even if our commentators do not understand the nature of the "evidence" it matters not one iota. Think about it. Their position is perfect. Those that have access to the documents (and in document identification photographs are not nearly good enough) are almost to a person, a member of some religious institution or a religious department of some university. It is almost certain where the evidence is going to lay for them. If, on rare occassion, someone is secular and has the same opportunity to examine the same documents and disagrees with them, a charge of sour grapes will be launched against them.

How many people actually get to examine any one original fragment or manuscript? Is it thousands? Is it hundreds? No, it is more like three or four.

In the aforementioned discussion I have learned a few things:

If paleographer's guesses overlap by within 100 years at the 65% confidence level, that means they were highly accurate and their guesses as to the non dated material of the first or second century CE material should be accepted as gospel.

That it is OK to ignore links to photographs and facsimilies found on the Internet because they come from biased secular sources. Instead giving a reference to some expert's assertion in a book or medium the average reader is not going to be able to obtain and not be able to validate for accuracy of the quote or photography.

That I am an idiot, liar, and nincompoop especially when my oponent desires to misread or misunderstand my comments, or if I give references to a secular (meaning atheist) website.

You will problably meet with the same outcome here except for two things: name calling is held to a minimum by moderators and there are more here that understand the issues and might agree with you.

Thanks for the response Darstec.

This issue of paleographic dating being accepted as some form of
authority by the mainstream is totally unacceptable to the 21st CE.
This state of affairs is made critical due to the fact that it is known
that paleographic assessment will normally fail to detect a forgery,
and that the art of forgery is not beyond the possibility of fourth
century technology.

Earlier this year, I received an encouraging response from usenet
in the following discussion:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/so...365ac6b6?hl=en

Here is the relevant text ....

Quote:

Even if the owners of theses few fragments were openminded enough to
want to get at the truth, very few of the vast readership of these
newsgroups is aware that the fragments are very small. And to say that
such and such a fragment is from such and such a gospel/epistle might
be sheer coincidence. Having opportunities to examine both ancient
manuscripts and fragments I can assure you (but then you yourself know
this of your own experience) that reading those things is not straight
forward. Fragments are especially troublesome. Many times we read
that fragment X contains verses 20:5 -- 21:2 of such and such. What
closer examination shows is that about half an inch to an inch of every
column of both sides is missing; that letters drop in and out due to
fading or blotting; that letters are as easy to read as my brother's
handwriting (almost impossible); and that the passage is a generic one
with counterparts in both the Old Testament or literature in general.

But putting all that aside, while there might just possibly be enough
papyri to date, there might well not be enough ink though I doubt that
might be necessary even if possible. While Eusebius might be cognizant
of the difference of old writing papyrus, I doubt anyone back then
would worry about ink as long as it looked oldish. Modern document
forensics is probably not older that the 16th century when forgers
tried to duplicate old paint.

I was interested in your ideas of graphology, but having studied it for
quite some time (actually wrote a book on the subject) I don't think
judging a script by its era (as in 1920, 40s, 60s, etc) is distinct
from the personality of the writer. In other words a master forger can
forge a 1920s script very accurately leaving little or no script from
the 2005 era, yet leave his "personality" highly distinguishable in
both eras, and still be datable to the 1920 except by the very
discerning expert. I think paleography in many respects fails on this
bases. Too many experts look at the form but not the minutia of the
"personality". Keep in mind that many of these paleographic examiners
do not have labs equipped with the necessary tools. Some gradient
measuring devices alone cost as much as $32,000 dollars, not to mention
the photgraphic microscopes necessary to demonstrate these
characteristics. Most seem to be experts by proclamation [self
proclamation]. Problem is that the field is very narrow. Most
document examiners are too busy earning a living by dealing with more
or less contemporary writing and access to the old stuff is both
limited and income deficient.

And in regard to the inpugning of names as a response to my dialogue
rather than the option of reasoned discussion, I can only continue to
point out that this behaviour is consistent with the first christians.

Calumny was the literary weapon of Eusebius to deal with those groups
and tribes of people who, being distinct from the new and strange religion
of christianity in the fourth century, were fair game for mud-slinging.

Nothing much has changed with this 4th CE phenomenom in the intervening
centuries.

Best wishes, and thanks again for your objectivity.

Pete Brown
NAMASTE
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_071.htm

andrewcriddle · 07-10-2006, 03:37 PM

One problem you have is that you are not merely claiming that a specific text eg P66 has been wrongly dated by paleography and should be much later.

You are suggesting that all NT texts dated in the 3rd century in fact come from the 4th century or later.

This amounts to a claim that paleography of late antique Greek texts is not simply inaccurate (which might be true) but systematically biased. Such a claim requires IMO much stronger evidence than you have presented so far.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 07-10-2006, 04:03 PM

Is not the British Museum or a University for example independent, not religiously biased and having the best equipment? - Last time I looked I was very impressed at the enlightenment credentials of the British Museum!

Is there a problem that the Museums are not seeing this stuff? The computer and other analyses now available are fantastic - we can recover huge amounts of data.

If this field is full of assertion, as it feels, that is very dangerous.

Clivedurdle · 07-10-2006, 04:15 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

It might be third century!

In Koranic studies verses in the koran have been found in early mosques - but it might be the other way round - the koran used the saying in the mosque.

Why should not a much later gospel of John have copied this pre existing idea? It actually shows nothing about John!

mountainman · 07-10-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One problem you have is that you are not merely claiming that a specific text eg P66 has been wrongly dated by paleography and should be much later.

You are suggesting that all NT texts dated in the 3rd century in fact come from the 4th century or later.

The carbon dating of manuscripts (there are two citations) and the
archeological dating of churches, inscriptions, etc in fact come from
the 4th century or later. All evidence is post-Nicaean.

The inference that any and all NT texts date to the pre-Nicaean
epoch is thus not based on this evidence.

The inference that any and all NT texts date to the pre-Nicaean
epoch is an inference drawn from the Eusebian Ecclesiastical History,
which was prepared in the fourth century, probably sponsored by the
supreme imperial mafia thug Constantine.

Quote:

This amounts to a claim that paleography of late antique Greek texts is not simply inaccurate (which might be true) but systematically biased. Such a claim requires IMO much stronger evidence than you have presented so far.

We have the Eusebian Ecclesiastical History continued in part by
Rufinus, who admits in his Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology
for Origen (Otherwise the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works
of Origen.), Addressed to Macarius at Pinetum a.d. 397. how it became
necessary to CORRECT the patristic literature.

The systematic bias here, is christian doctrine, and its appearance
in the patristic literature for authors in the time period immediately
prior to Nicaea. This is an important consideration.

To return to your question, which involves consideration of the
systematic bias of handwriting styles, both within and without
the "Ecclesiastical environment" of the late antique Greek.

I ask you, which of these considerations is more important?
Emperor Julian tells us wicked men fabricated a NT fiction..

Is the handwriting of the doctrine important?
Can we rely on handwriting when we know its a fiction.
A fiction sponsored by THE BOSS, placed on display at Nicaea,
probably in the Hadrian script, so that the new and strange
package called christianity could be called ancient.

Is the historical integrity of the doctrine important?
How are each related to one another?
What possibilities and permutations exist?
Which is more likely?

Time and further C14 results IMO will tell.
Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2006, 03:37 PM	#2
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	One problem you have is that you are not merely claiming that a specific text eg P66 has been wrongly dated by paleography and should be much later. You are suggesting that all NT texts dated in the 3rd century in fact come from the 4th century or later. This amounts to a claim that paleography of late antique Greek texts is not simply inaccurate (which might be true) but systematically biased. Such a claim requires IMO much stronger evidence than you have presented so far. Andrew Criddle

07-10-2006, 04:03 PM	#3
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is not the British Museum or a University for example independent, not religiously biased and having the best equipment? - Last time I looked I was very impressed at the enlightenment credentials of the British Museum! Is there a problem that the Museums are not seeing this stuff? The computer and other analyses now available are fantastic - we can recover huge amounts of data. If this field is full of assertion, as it feels, that is very dangerous.

07-10-2006, 04:15 PM	#4
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52 It might be third century! In Koranic studies verses in the koran have been found in early mosques - but it might be the other way round - the koran used the saying in the mosque. Why should not a much later gospel of John have copied this pre existing idea? It actually shows nothing about John!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.