Seeker2000

Yes, I think that would be a great idea to help this discussion, as then everybody could see for themselves what is being discussed.

Is there a photo of the Magdalen Papyrus P64 available online as well? If not, it'd be nice if you could also make a scan of that one.

In order to upload it, you need some webspace. There are free picture storing services on the net, e.g. http://www.photobucket.com/
Maybe you could use one of those. If you don't want to register, you could use http://tinypic.com/ - but of course you can't take the pictures down from their website later or change something then, since you can't log into an account then.

Maybe you could upload the scans there and then put the links on this thread, either as links or in the following form, if you want to embed the pictures into your posting (but this would not be such a good idea, if they are big):

(img)http://www.somtehing.com/something.jpg(/img)

Just use these brackets [] instead of those ().

Steven Avery

Not by you. In the accusations that he deliberately left out a picture of the Nero papyrus. "Almost like a" twin was omitted. And his references to where to find out about the Nero papyrus were omitted. The accusations were given an integrity tinge, rather than a scholarship analysis, at the same time. Tacky.

Before you were arguing that there were NO codexes at all in the 1st century. Rather than acknowledge that you were simply wrong, I see you retreated to a fallback position. Tacky. Now, which scholar's accusation is it that claims that Thiede obscured the issue of a double column ? Quote, please.

Earlier in the thread you argued that ANY codex would make the papyrus as first-century anachronistic. Now, you have seen scholarly sources that acknowledge first century codex, so you say that a double column codex is impossible. You show no evidence for that, nor any scholarly quotes.

Conceptually, why ? If there is one extant evidence, then there must be two ? The laws of pairs ?

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Carr

That would be useful indeed for a later record.

The things people have to do because D'Ancona refused to put forward his evidence (He was not shy about putting forward his conclusions)

Steven Carr

Praxeus is accusing me of being tacky because I said page 124 is described as 'virtually a twin', when the words 'almost like a twin' were written....

Can I live with the shame? How could I have ever done such a thing?

And I hope people forgive me for not spotting D'Anconas reference which included neither author, publisher, or country of publication.

S.C.Carlson

Since I don't claim to be an expert, Peter Head's article (http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale...Head/P64TB.htm n.68) defines Biblical majuscule as:

OK, I've uploaded a detail of P. Oxy. 246 here: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/images/poxy-246-detail.jpg

Let's apply the criteria:

1. "a preference for geometric forms" - No

2. "letters can be fitted into squares (the only exceptions being Ι, Ρ, Φ, Υ, Ω)" - No

3. "a contrast in thickness between compact vertical strokes, thin horizontal and ascending strokes, descending diagonals of medium thickness…" - No

4. "absence of decorative crowning dashes or ornamental hooks" - No

By this criteria, P.Oxy. 246 is not an example of Biblical Majuscule.

Diogenes the Cynic

Was there a photo in the book? If not then he omitted it. References about where to find more information are disingenuous since Thiede knows that the majority of the audience for a popular book are not likely to seek that information out or necessarily even be able to find it if they do.
Pretty much all of them make this observation. I had assumed you were reading your own links. No matter here's Sigfried Peterson.
Nice way to avoid the question. Codices were not common until the 2nd century. Is that better? Can you show any 1st century mauscript of any Biblical text at all that is in codical form?


After that, can you explain why Thiede obscured the fact that the codex was two columed in his transcription and his discussion?



I have no idea what this sentence means but Thiede has given no reason for us to believe that there is one "extant evidence [sic]" In fact, he doesn't even explicitly acknowledge the problem at all.

Diogenes the Cynic

Thank you. I'm almost completely ignorant of Greek paleography but the script in the photograph certainly does not seem to match the characterizations of Biblical Majuscule given by Head or by anyone else who I've read in my research today.

Steven Avery

Rereading the thread I see that you did qualify, that it was Diogenenes, who lopped off the qualification. You quoted Diogenenes, but only after your own reasonable quoting. I fully withdraw that objection to your statement with an apology for not going back on the thread and rereading.

Since you were continually accusing Thiede on this very issue ...
"wild claim"
"highly suggestive"
"challenge people to track down papyrii"
It would seem that looking for the actual reference would be rather elementary. However, that oversight is now forgiven on this end.

As to the difficulty of the reference..
"vol. 2 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri" really doesn't seem too difficult. It took me about ten seconds to find ..
http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/lists/list2.html
POxy (Oxyrhynchus Online) Volume 2 POxy 208-400

Now, when do you believe the Gospel of John was writtern ?

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Diogenes the Cynic

You seem to be implying that there was something unreasonable about my own offhand use of the term "twin" when making a comment about that quote. I must say, I find this kind of picayune carping exceedingly tedious as well a distraction from the substance of this discussion.
Carlson beat you to it. After going to your link, I found an index of listed papyri but no photographs or plates. Not very helpful, is it?

If you look at the link in SCC's post, though, you will notice straight away that it's not in two columns, and little more examination seems to contraindicate am identification of the script as Biblica Majuscule. Of course, I must say that I am not remotely qualified as a paleographer so I am more than happy to defer to anyone who knows more than I do.
Which version?

Steven Avery

Not really, as you were not going out of your way make integrity accusations against Thiede vis a vis the Nero papyrus, so it was more shorthand. My hope was not to give that impression towards your usage but I expected it might be seen that way.

The Gospel of John question was for Steven Carr, as it related to earlier threads, as with the Pericope, and was (snipped) multiple times.[/QUOTE]

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/