Amaleq13

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Mt 7:3, KJV)

Steven Avery

Thank you Notsri for sharing this, and the previous information as well.

So far, it seems then that there really is no proper kvetch at all against d'Ancona or Carsten Thiede vis a vis the Nero papyrus, and their integrity was improperly impugned on that issue on this forum. Sincere thanks to Nostri for clarifying the scholarship.

And it seems that the Nero papyrus is a very valid evidence to bring to the table as a similar script on a similar material, yet with a known historical dating. Precisely what one would consider primary evidence, because of the known dating of the comparison item. This may not undo the weight of other evidences, but it stands on its own account.

However, it is possible that Sungenis went out on a limb by ignoring the issue of a double-columned codex in his response. (Sungenis is simply a catholic apologist, I have seen him debate James White, I don't believe he brings any special expertise to this debate). Even on that issue we have seen that the idea of no codexes in the 1st century is simply wrong, and nobody has made a constructive argument that all codexes in the 1st century would be single-column, with double-column codexes only arising in the 2nd century. It may be true, but I have not seen the argument in my searches, and I can see no logical reasoning for that, as double-columns, while adding some sophistication, is far from rocket science.

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

Steven Avery

It looks like the moderator's here will put their views ahead of fairness. Why not step in when a simple question to Steven is simply (snipped) again and again, without even the courtesy of a response ?

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

S.C.Carlson

Thanks for the reference to Deismann. However, comparing the photo of P.Oxy. 246 in Deissmann to Thiede and Ancona's photo of P64 (the Magdalen Papyrus, I just don't see the resemblance.

I could scan the Deissmann photo; is there a way to upload images to this forum?

Vorkosigan

The image must be hosted elsewhere. You can use the IMG command {IMG}http://www.image.weblink.jpg{/IMG} replace "{ }" with brackets "[ ]"

Diogenes the Cynic

What it means is that there is no support at all for the Nero papyrus being in either the same script or being in a double columned codex.
"Similar" in what way? Is it majuscule or isn't it? Until you identify the script you have nothing.
They are both on papyrus. An utterly meaningless point.
No it doesn't because no relevant point of comparison has been offered other than a subjective (and unillustrated) opinion that the scripts look "similar."

On preview, I see that SCC has now rebutted even that scant bit of testimony.

Show us anything from the NT in codex from before the 2nd century.
And nobody has to. It is your burden to perove that any such thing exists. Arguments from absence are worthless.
Your searches seem to be limited only to the most abjectly apologetic sources. Try looking for some genuine scholarship.

Diogenes the Cynic

Is P246 in Biblical unical/majuscule?

Steven Avery

Straw man. You are parsing words unused by Thiede.

The accusation was made against Thiede by misquoting him, and ignoring the fact that the book said precisely where to obtain more information on the Nero papyrus, as done by Nostri. The accuser didn't even mention the references ! Tacky.

:-) that is preciely the claim of Thiede. That this would be the one extant such evidence. He may be wrong, but he would have happily agreed with you that he can't show you anything else extant that is NT before the 1st century, codex or any other form. Please, Diogenes, this is not real complex.

Completely false, in fact I referenced the Peter Head, Sigfrid Peterson and Elliot articles in my earlier posts. Most of my studies on this have been non-apologetic sources, and you don't seem to be paying attention.

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

Amaleq13

Complaints about moderation do not belong here. They belong in Problems & Complaints.

Avoiding or ignoring direct questions is not against the rules. All you can do is point out or repeat the unanswered questions whenever the subject become relevant. Links directly to the earlier unanswered questions are handy but do not guarantee results.

Diogenes the Cynic

No, I'm drawing a conclusion from a lack of data. I haven't made any reference at all to Thiede's words,.
How was Thiede misquoted? All I did was ask for more information on the Nero papyrus, and from what we've seen so far, no relevant points of comparison have been shown to exist between it and the Matthean fragments.
Wow, what a happy coincidence for Thiede. Why did he obscure the fact that it was a double column in his argument for redating? Why did he offer no evidence or argument for such a startling discovery of a double columned codex in the 1st century or reference that bit at all? It seems more like it was a bit of information he was trying to hide not explicate.
It sure isn't. The double columned codex, in itself would make the papyrus anachronistic in the first century. Argument over. Any argumement that the papyrus is the only such extant example is completely unsupported and almost laughably tendentious.
Yes you have. I stand corrected. You have referenced some wheat along with the chaff.