DCHindley

First of all, the way you cut the cited post it looks like I asked whether "it is safe to date the codex between 85 and 150," although it was you who said Comfort said that.

I do not have the 1992/2003 book you cite in my personal library, and I didn't see a sample review page available online.

Yet in the following 2005 book by same author, Comfort dates it between 150-175 CE! (Encountering the Manuscripts, pages 131-139).

Or are you reading what Comfort said about Kim's 1988 dating and thinking he endorses it? In the 2005 book above, he says he accepts it as a possibility, if one accepts the early dates for the comparable mss, but in the end he did not accept them, and cites other comparables that date later.

DCH (taking my union mandated break before heading on the road for work)

sschlichter

quoting Comfort from page 76, in a section labelled <b>p46, ca 85-150</b>

"Zuntz dates p46 at 200, but mentions that Ulrich Wilcken, director of the vienna library and founder of Archiv dur Papyrusforschung, dated the work earlier in the 2nd century. Kim (1988) dates in 85-90. Thus, it is safe to date the codex between 85 and 150."

However, if he has a later book (the 2005 book you referred to), I would presume he wrote it because of a change. He does appear in that book to prefer mid-2nd century while leaving open the possibility of Kim's early dating.

So, DCH, apparently your crap cutting measures were sufficient.

sschlichter

you mean by zero-ing in to the half-millenium in question. You must not understand the concept of cherry picking.

spamandham

What is your assessment of the consensus, if you do not think it's latter 2nd century?

sschlichter

there is no consensus. there are scenarios that date it late first, and others that date it mid 2nd, and another that dates it as late as 200. I don't personally see any value in that. The only consensus that exists is between 85 - 200. If you insist on an average then it is 143 but I see no value in taking an average.

spamandham

Although I would quibble that the upper end should include the upper end of all scholars (255), since we're including the lower end of all scholars, I'm ok with 85-200.

That being the case then, let's get back to the original discussion. How does p46 discredit the idea of multiple authors, since the range in question includes a period of rampant pseudepigrapha?

DCHindley

Well, people at work do say that I really know my crap.

DCH

spin

By being in denial about different manuscript traditions, of which P46 is an aberrant example of one. Cherry-picking is ignoring the majority of the evidence in order to believe somehow that P46 can reflect better what came before it in the development of manuscript traditions. You are swayed merely the age aspect of the manuscript and show no inclination to understand how it fits.


spin

sschlichter

yes, yes, but what came before it? What are you referring to?

I am swayed by the age. I have more 'faith' in the early Christians than I do the later ones. I do not care what anyone changed it to 900 years later.

sschlichter

they just tell me I am full of crap.