PoodleLovinPessimist

What hangs on the early or late dating of this fragment? In other words, (if I understand the thread correctly) why would pro-Christian bias look for an earlier date and anti-Christian bias look for a later date?

Vivisector

It's more than a fragment; it's virtually the entire Pauline corpus less the Pastorals. Some conservative Christians would argue that an early dating of a collection of Paul's epistles would indicate that, almost from the beginning, these writings were accorded a high degree of respect, if not scriptural status. Early scriptural status would, in turn, be a point in favor of the authenticity of 2 Peter as a product of Simon Peter (since this epistle refers to Paul's letters as "scriptures"). In a more general sense, an early dating of P46 would be construed as an indication that the canonization process was well underway and perhaps even essentially completed prior to the end of the first century CE rather than the herky jerky process that history would seem to indicate. These are two thoughts that come to mind, anyway.

Cheers,

V.

[Added: An early date for P46 would also be evidence in favor of the authenticity of Colossians, Ephesians, and 2d Thessalonians.]

Haran

You probably meant 1st Thessalonians. I don't think p46 preserved 2nd Thessalonians.

This subject has been debated many times, and honestly, I've never been completely sure why either.

Perhaps it has something to do with P46 being, I believe, the earliest witness to most of the works of Paul.

Philip Comfort, a relatively conservative scholar and palaeographer, states in The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (2000) that he finds "Kim's dating of P46...probably too early". He, instead, is of the opinion that P46 "belongs to...perhaps the middle of the second century" based on comparisons with specific manuscripts (which he lists in the book).

Comfort goes on to say that a date in the middle of the second century "allows time for the formation of the Pauline corpus to have occurred and for an archetypal collection to have been produced and to circulate in Egypt."

Though it is probably obvious enough from the title, the book mentioned above contains the entire greek text of many of the earliest NT MSS, including P46. One can peruse the text and note even the various forms of Nomina Sacra that are used in P46.

Haran

The manuscripts Comfort compares with P46 for a mid-second century date are:

(Only one of these appears to be online, but the dates of most of the other Oxyrhynchus Papyri can be found on their website.)
P.Oxy.8
P.Oxy.841
P.Oxy.1622
P.Oxy.2337
P.Oxy.3721 - Comfort says about 3721, "...the most comparable of all the manuscripts I have personally seen."
P.Rylands III 550
P.Berol.9810

A few online images of P46 for comparison:
Image 1
Image 2 - can anyone read Russian? What is this "skeptic" site saying?
Image 3

Kim used the following primary examples:
P.Oxy.1790
P.Oxy.2337
P.Oxy.3695
P.Mil.Vogl.1181
P.Mich.6789
P.Alex.443
P.Med.70.01 verso
P.Rylands III 550

Some of these might also be online. I have no more time to check.

rlogan

"Classicists" do not take an anti-Christian oath. Nor do they take an anti-horoscope or witchcraft oath.

We would not say that "classicists" have a "bias" gainst horoscopes or witchcraft. That term carries the implication that they actively reject sound science found in horoscopes or witchcraft.

Likewise, there is nothing about "classicists" that demands an anti-Christian "bias" in this sense. Maybe you have evidence of a conspiracy here.

Diogenes the Cynic

Can a Classicist not BE a Christan?

I would wager that more of them are Christian (or at least theistic) than not. I certainly see no reason to call any significant percentage of them anti-Christian.

Craigart14

Josephus on Jesus:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

As a literary critic, I would suggest that the narrative voice in this passage is clearly that of a believer. Would a Jewish historian say that Jesus was "a teacher of those who accept the truth gladly"? Would a first century Jew or Roman state flatly that "he was the Messiah"? Would a historian state as fact that Jesus "appeared to them . . . restored to life"? The shift in point of view that occurs at the beginning and end of this passage jumps off the page. I think that becomes more apparent the more one reads Josephus.

Craig

Vorkosigan

That >ripping< sound you just heard was a can of worms being opened up.

Diogenes the Cynic

Did you mean for this post to go in the Josephus thread?

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Haran. That's a very high quality and informative post.

P.Oxy.1622 is online here

http://www.igl.ku.dk/~bulow/Oxy1622.jpg

I couldn't find the others online.

Vorkosigan