Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jedi Mind Trick · 01-20-2005, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

It contains most of the Pauline Corpus except the Pastorals but including Hebrews.

B

Aren’t these universally recognized, by skeptic and believer, as the earliest writings anyway? (40-60 CE)

Metacrock · 01-20-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Well I would hope so ,it's like you complaining that Physics is dominated by physicists

How exactly do you come up with the idea that Classicists are necessarily Anti Christian ?
I have been to Classical Conferences and discussed things with CofE clergymen,lay members of various churches and at one conference a speech was given by a Bishop.

I got in trouble once making that assumption. My Greek prof was from Yale, and a classicist so I assumed he would be very anti-Christian. I was newly saved and wanted to ask him questions about the bibilcal text but didnt' dare. When I finally brought up such a question and prefaced it with some remark about him probaly thinking christianity was dumb, he was very disappointed and offended. He wasn't a chrsitain but dind' think anything bad about it. he said one finds Christains at all level of academia, there are Christian classicists, and the better classicists don't judge people just based upon their private beliefs.

Now in sociology you will get a lot of anti-Christian assumptions. It wouldn't even pay to try to go into socilogy as a Christian.

Atheos · 01-20-2005, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

<snip>
I could easily tell you which century a printed KJV came from both by the letter forms and the spelling (which is modernised in modern editions. Also, if it contains the long 's' we would know for certain it predated 1800. If other NT papyri of around 200AD use the 'ek' form and P46 uses the earlier form then that is both strong evidence both that P46 is earlier and that scribes were happy to change the forms even for sacred texts.

You are certainly in a position to make an informed guess as to the date of a page of KJV text, but if you were to put it in the same perspective as we're talking about here -- it's several thousand years from now and the earliest copy of a KJV text that you have was printed in 2005 but now all you have are fragments. You compare it with contemporary fragments of NIV, RSV, NKJV, etc. Using the information you have you might be able to make a strong argument that the KJV was several hundred years older than the other documents based on the language used.

Quote:

FWIW, it is axiomatic here at Infidels that early Christians would change and forge anything they bloody well pleased which would also defeat your counter argument, although I'm sure you are too sensible to buy into Infidels orthodoxy.

Your confidence is misplaced. I can be very unsensible. :Cheeky: I happen to be quite sure that a lot of opining got done in those early years before any serious attempt at establishing a canon began. The amount of ongoing evolution of religous thought today even in the shadow of well defined scriptures is sufficient evidence to conclude that even more of it happened before those scriptures were set forth.

Quote:

So at the moment Kim is on strong ground for a dating of 125 +/- 25 years.

Whoa, that's a far cry from any first century date by as much as 50 years. 65 years if you're going with the AD85 date as suggested in the OP.

From what little I've read about the venerable P46 I'm easily as comfortable with a date of AD150 as AD200.

-Atheos

01-20-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW Metzger in 'Text of the New Testament' third edition pages 265-266 is highly sceptical about Kim's proposed dating of P46.

Apart from the question of whether a collection of Paul's epistles was in wide circulation before the end of the 1st century, P46 has a highly developed system of nomina sacra that probably links it to late 2nd century or later texts.

Thanks Andrew. You may have saved Vork's bacon.

For those unfamiliar with Metzger's work (and I do not place him in the unreliable classicist mould), could you expand on this abit and explain what these nomina sacra are?

B

01-20-2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Using the information you have you might be able to make a strong argument that the KJV was several hundred years older than the other documents based on the language used.

No. The spelling in a 2005 edition of the KJV is modern so I would know it was not several hundred years earlier. And from the typeface I would certainly be able to place it within a few decades of 2005. We need both peices of evidence. Also, the KJV is a special case and you yourself admitted that early Christians might not have such a strong relationship to Paul's writing as sacred text.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto · 01-20-2005, 10:53 AM

Text of the New Testament can be searched on Amazon. If you search for "Kim", you will find the relevant pages.

01-20-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Text of the New Testament can be searched on Amazon. If you search for "Kim", you will find the relevant pages.

True, but it seems I have to pay to see them. So it would be helpful if Andrew could summarise Metzger's argument.

B

Toto · 01-20-2005, 11:38 AM

From Metzger -

Quote:

Another highly problematic proposal has been made recently concerting the date of the important Chester Beatty Biblical Papyrus II, P46 (see pp. 37 f. above), which has hitherto been dated by palaeographers to about AD 200. On the basis of a comparison made with the style of Greek letters in certan other doucments dating from the last century BC and the first century AD, an argument was built up by Y.K.Kim to show that P46 should be dated 'Later First Century. . . Although, of course, close comparison with the styel of other documents is necessary --and must be checked with other scholars -- other considerations should also be taken into account. If we assume that the year AD 80 would be a resonable figure on Kim's basis, we are confronted with several highly improbable circumstances. First, P46 is a perfectly ordinary copy -- certainly not the archetype of the Pauline corpus! It must have taken some time for the nine Epistles that are preserved in P46 to have been collected, then a copy made of the corpus (the archtype), and finally a copy of this to reach the interior of Egypt. Furthermore, as T.C. Skeat commented to the present writer (in a letter dated 15 Sept 1988), 'We would have to accept that it is, by a very wide margin, the oldest surviving Christian manuscript and the oldest surviving example

[p 266]

of a papyrus code. Moreover, P46 uses an extensive and well developed system of nomina sacra, which is difficult to believe can have existed, not merely in AD 80, but, presumably, in one of its ancestors. I therefore find it impossible to accept Kim's these. It is certainly significant that the late EG Turner, who examined, in original or in photograph, over 500 codices, dated p46 firmly as '3rd century.' [1]

[1] Eric G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia, 1977) p. 148

01-20-2005, 02:14 PM

Thanks Toto, that is most helpful.

It seems the nomina sacra business is just a big circular argument. In fact, it seems that there are no early NT papyri without them (except P52 which is too short to show any although line length does suggest they are in use). For instance, Papyrus Egerton 2 has a full collection of these things. So the argument that the nom. sac. are not in earlier NT fragments is actually bogus. The argument appears to be that if we had any earlier NT fragments the nom. sac. would be missing but hell, we don't know because we don't have any.

Likewise, the stuff about it being odd to have a corpus of Paul at this early stage is a non-argument. We know there was a corpus of Paul when 2 Peter was written so finding one from around this period is not really surprising. So, we are down to a straight contest between Kim's up to date paleography and Turners from 25 years ago especially given Kim mentions two new papyri publications that he used. I fear Metzger has let his conservatism get the better of him here. From reading Kim's article, it seems a median date of 100AD +/- 25 years is a prudent dating for this document, 125AD if we want to be really conservative. 200AD, however, is hardly tenable after his analysis.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan · 01-20-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Well, that is one way of avoiding justifying your assertions. Anyway, having read Kim's work, it does seem that he is more likely right than not, the classicist establishment notwithstanding. I'd hoped that Vork would have some counterarguments but it seems I overestimated him...

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Well, since your idea of a "counterargument" is to demand the names and credentials of everyone at a meeting from nine years ago -- I laughed my ass of, BTW, that was a masterly bit of comedy -- no, you're right, I don't have a counterargument. :notworthy

It seems important to you to win, so you can have another one: :notworthy

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

01-20-2005, 10:53 AM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Text of the New Testament can be searched on Amazon. If you search for "Kim", you will find the relevant pages.

01-20-2005, 02:14 PM	#29
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Thanks Toto, that is most helpful. It seems the nomina sacra business is just a big circular argument. In fact, it seems that there are no early NT papyri without them (except P52 which is too short to show any although line length does suggest they are in use). For instance, Papyrus Egerton 2 has a full collection of these things. So the argument that the nom. sac. are not in earlier NT fragments is actually bogus. The argument appears to be that if we had any earlier NT fragments the nom. sac. would be missing but hell, we don't know because we don't have any. Likewise, the stuff about it being odd to have a corpus of Paul at this early stage is a non-argument. We know there was a corpus of Paul when 2 Peter was written so finding one from around this period is not really surprising. So, we are down to a straight contest between Kim's up to date paleography and Turners from 25 years ago especially given Kim mentions two new papyri publications that he used. I fear Metzger has let his conservatism get the better of him here. From reading Kim's article, it seems a median date of 100AD +/- 25 years is a prudent dating for this document, 125AD if we want to be really conservative. 200AD, however, is hardly tenable after his analysis. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.