Prester John

This is not my field at all but in a discussion i am having i have been linked to this site

http://members.aol.com/egweimi/p46.htm

for a claimed redate of p46 to c85AD.

From my other readings (mainly threads on and linked from discussions here) the more accepted earliest fragment is c130AD.

I've tried a search on the subject but get a lot of info about government forms The only comment i have found is to call the re date idiosyncratic.

Any help please?

regards

PJ

Vorkosigan

That date was refuted several years ago by Bruce Griffin at a conference in 1996 and is no longer regarded as tenable.

We talked about this:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-33746.html

although conservatives still complain about it....

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/c...02/004648.html

Vorkosigan

Bede

What that thread appears to be is Vork saying that Christians are biased and we can't trust their work, and Haran saying that sceptics are biased and we can't trust theirs.

As for whether Kim or Griffin is right, there is nothing.

For the record, from what I know about palaeography, it is dominated by classicists and not Christians, so I expect an anti-Christian bias. For that reason alone, we should take Griffin with a pinch of salt.

Yours

Bede

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.

Vorkosigan

Griffin is a Christian, no? I mean, he is a theology instructor at a Catholic institution.

Vorkosigan

gregor

Wow, how Bede could read that thread and make his statements is beyond me.

Bede

Doesn't matter. Robert Price and Darrell Doughty both used to teach at Duke which is a Lutheran College. Besides, even if he is a Christian his professional work will be utterly contaminated by the anti-Christian bias of his field. Sorry, Luc, but the fact there are Christians who are classicists does not the mean the field as a whole is not strongly biased against Christianity. To get ahead, you would be very ill advised to say anything that seemed to support traditional Christianity.

Also, I note from that link that Griffin has not even got a PhD in anything and no professional qualification in papyrology. Kim, on the other hand, has a life time of experience. Yet you believe the amateur because he says what you want to hear. Please explain to us why Kim is wrong or admit you have no idea.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

I have no idea! That's why I defer to professional scholars who accepted Griffin's view over Kim's at a meeting on this very topic in 1996!

Bede

Sources and credentials please.

B

Atheos

I'm still trying to follow Kim's argument as linked in the OP. Meanwhile I have a question specificially for Vork but which may be of interest to others or I would have PM'd it.

In the 2002 discussion you referenced on IIDB I noticed that you made the following statement:

Do you have a handy link where I could read up on these arguments? Are you still of that persuasion? I've always found the ending of Mark a fascinating subject. If this question causes a derail I'll be glad to take it elsewhere. No, no, not ~elsewhere~!

-Atheos