Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-04-2012, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanutaxis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

==moved here from ABR==

Moved where?

Biblical Criticism and History Forum (are you reading responses by email notice?)

Roger Pearse · 06-04-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Are you sure? Just thinking, John's gospel was written ca. AD 90. Papyrus fragment P52 is dated to 125 AD, plus or minus 25 years, by the Colin Roberts in his original publication; but I believe some people think more likely ca. 150 these days, doubtless with the same margin of error. So ... that figure seems more or less right?

Eeeek, Roger, you're selling Roberts infallibility! As this hopeful dating appears with unchecked enthusiam, we need to point out that Andreas Schmidt dated it to 170 CE ± 25 years. Brent Nongbri--HarvardTheolRev 98.1 (2005) 23-48--heavily criticized the datings indicating that such a narrow dating is not justifiable from palaeography and that scripts can be around for a hundred years.

I am aware of the Schmidt dating. But I was unaware that it commanded the consensus of the academy.

Nongbri's paper (which I have read) consisted of objecting to all paleographical datings of 2nd century Greek papyri. That doesn't help much, and since he stated that his purpose was to allow P52 to be dated later, in order to facilitate dating John's gospel into the 2nd century, it's hard not to feel that this is special pleading. And what date did Nongbri propose for P52?

Roberts, before publication, did the sensible thing and got the thing dated by the most eminent paleographers of his time (which is why his date has lasted, despite the inconvenience of his research to NT scholars, then and now). The shift to 25 years later relates to other material, as I understand it, which it was dated by comparison with, and is itself now dated somewhat later. But at this point my knowledge of the literature fades out.

I think when P52 is generally dated later than the Roberts' dates, based on sound research, we'll all know about it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle · 06-04-2012, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Are you sure? Just thinking, John's gospel was written ca. AD 90. Papyrus fragment P52 is dated to 125 AD, plus or minus 25 years, by the Colin Roberts in his original publication; but I believe some people think more likely ca. 150 these days, doubtless with the same margin of error. So ... that figure seems more or less right?

Eeeek, Roger, you're selling Roberts infallibility! As this hopeful dating appears with unchecked enthusiam, we need to point out that Andreas Schmidt dated it to 170 CE ± 25 years. Brent Nongbri--HarvardTheolRev 98.1 (2005) 23-48--heavily criticized the datings indicating that such a narrow dating is not justifiable from palaeography and that scripts can be around for a hundred years.

Andreas Schmidt redated P52 on the basis of palaeographic similarities and differences with the Chester Beatty papyri which are themselves only dated on palaeographic evidence. This is IMO intrinsically problematic as a means of dating texts.

Andrew Criddle

Zenaphobe · 06-04-2012, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Neat huh? :grin:

No.

You're concocting an argument which you know isn't valid, because not the same thing, and inviting others to find the flaws.

The normal English term for this is "dishonesty".

Don't do this. It brings atheism into disrepute.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I noticed that PhilosopherJay made a similar argument to mine using fictitious works, and you didn't call him a "dishonest" atheist bringing shame upon the name of atheism.

Perhaps you should explain to me what that chart is supposed to be supporting. What is the "reliability" I'm to take away from the creators intent?

I read it to mean

More= Reliable
Early=Reliable

So, what is "reliable", and how is the Book of Mormon exempt from the reliability imputed to the NT for the same set of markers?

Is it the absence of the passing of 1800 more years? In 3812 AD, would the Book of Mormon meet the charts criteria for "reliability"?

Perhaps instead of calling me "dishonest", you could explain what is wrong with my analogy. Off the cuff accusations concerning motives and character isn't very polite, and is against the forum rules.

spin · 06-04-2012, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Are you sure? Just thinking, John's gospel was written ca. AD 90. Papyrus fragment P52 is dated to 125 AD, plus or minus 25 years, by the Colin Roberts in his original publication; but I believe some people think more likely ca. 150 these days, doubtless with the same margin of error. So ... that figure seems more or less right?

Eeeek, Roger, you're selling Roberts infallibility! As this hopeful dating appears with unchecked enthusiam, we need to point out that Andreas Schmidt dated it to 170 CE ± 25 years. Brent Nongbri--HarvardTheolRev 98.1 (2005) 23-48--heavily criticized the datings indicating that such a narrow dating is not justifiable from palaeography and that scripts can be around for a hundred years.

I am aware of the Schmidt dating. But I was unaware that it commanded the consensus of the academy.

It doesn't. But how many of the academy has actually looked at the palaeography?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Nongbri's paper (which I have read) consisted of objecting to all paleographical datings of 2nd century Greek papyri. That doesn't help much, and since he stated that his purpose was to allow P52 to be dated later, in order to facilitate dating John's gospel into the 2nd century, it's hard not to feel that this is special pleading. And what date did Nongbri propose for P52?

Roberts, before publication, did the sensible thing and got the thing dated by the most eminent paleographers of his time (which is why his date has lasted, despite the inconvenience of his research to NT scholars, then and now). The shift to 25 years later relates to other material, as I understand it, which it was dated by comparison with, and is itself now dated somewhat later. But at this point my knowledge of the literature fades out.

While there are problems with Nongbri's efforts, they haven't been dismissed. Here's one of England's best on the subject: "this is a helpful challenge to the consensus and a warning to the popularisers, but it is hardly the last word on the subject."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think when P52 is generally dated later than the Roberts' dates, based on sound research, we'll all know about it.

I don't expect it to be redated by the lumpen masses who like the date. When you've got nothing better you make do with palaeography. It's hard to falsify and then, if people complain, you can ignore them and if enough ignore, then you can happily pretend it doesn't matter.

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-04-2012, 12:39 PM

There are hundreds of millions of copies of Twilight out there. Twilight dwarfs the Bible in terms of reliability.

PhilosopherJay · 06-04-2012, 02:00 PM

Hi Roger,

Apparently textual critics are taking Nongbri's article very seriously:

Note this from H.A.G. Houghton, "Recent  Developments  in  New  Testament  Textual  Criticism" 
Early  Christianity 2.2 (2011) 245–68 

Quote:

30 The date of the earliest surviving fragment of the New Testament, P52, has also been the subject of a recent review by Nongbri.31 This cautions against the uncritical adoption of the earliest suggested date of 125 CE and demonstrates that a date in the late second or early third centuries remains palaeographically possible. As more and more comparative material becomes available online, it will not be surprising if the dating of other manuscripts is reassessed.

Further in a post here, Markus Vinzent makes these points:

Quote:

the dating of PEgerton 2 as P52 has previously been dated, as you rightly state, to the middle o the second century (or even earlier), but recent scholarship dates them later. The mentioned book by T. Nicklas, M.J. Kruger, and T.J. Kraus, Fragments (2009), 112 gives the turn of the second to the third century, and any earlier dating would presume an early dating of John (ibid. 100), hence, the older scholarship is based on a circular argument. One of the most recent studies is by Brent Nongbri, ‘The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel’: HTR 98 (2005): 23-48. Nongbri states with regards to P52 (but also applies to the close parallel Egerton 2): ‘nothing surprising to papyrologists: palaeography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand … Any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel’.

The "mentioned book" is "Gospel Fragments" by Tobias Kicklas, M.J. Kruger, and M.J. Krass. I checked and the book is going for $47 on Amazon, a little out of my fact-checking price range. I will accept Mr. Vinzent's word that on pg. 112, they place the fragment P52 in the second to the third century era.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Eeeek, Roger, you're selling Roberts infallibility! As this hopeful dating appears with unchecked enthusiam, we need to point out that Andreas Schmidt dated it to 170 CE ± 25 years. Brent Nongbri--HarvardTheolRev 98.1 (2005) 23-48--heavily criticized the datings indicating that such a narrow dating is not justifiable from palaeography and that scripts can be around for a hundred years.

I am aware of the Schmidt dating. But I was unaware that it commanded the consensus of the academy.

Nongbri's paper (which I have read) consisted of objecting to all paleographical datings of 2nd century Greek papyri. That doesn't help much, and since he stated that his purpose was to allow P52 to be dated later, in order to facilitate dating John's gospel into the 2nd century, it's hard not to feel that this is special pleading. And what date did Nongbri propose for P52?

Roberts, before publication, did the sensible thing and got the thing dated by the most eminent paleographers of his time (which is why his date has lasted, despite the inconvenience of his research to NT scholars, then and now). The shift to 25 years later relates to other material, as I understand it, which it was dated by comparison with, and is itself now dated somewhat later. But at this point my knowledge of the literature fades out.

I think when P52 is generally dated later than the Roberts' dates, based on sound research, we'll all know about it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Kapyong · 06-04-2012, 03:23 PM

Hmmm...

How many of those 24,000 copies were dated 40-70 years after the originals?

The few early major manuscripts are dated around 200CE.
P52 is a tiny fragment.

The vast majority of MSS are dated centuries later.

K.

aa5874 · 06-04-2012, 04:43 PM

Again we see people here are NOT reallly willing to accept the DATED evidence but are using their Imagination to DICTATE when fragments were written.

P 52 is NOT dated to 90 CE by Paleography but listed as c 125 CE and even later by some Paleographers.

So the claim in the OP that writings of the Jesus story were made within 40-70 years is NOT credible and cannot be shown to be true.

Again, the DATED evidence SHOWS a Big Black Hole for Jesus in the 1st century and beforee c 70 CE.

There is NO DATED Evidence that can show any of the FAKE authors of the Canon was a Contemporary of Pilate the Governor or Caiaphas the high Priest.

aeebee50 · 06-04-2012, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeebee50

Everything.

Based on the same set of comparisons, yes, the Book of Mormon must be a very reliable religious text.

More copies!

Texts dating to the genesis of the prophet himself!

If the New Testament ought to be taken as very reliable because of the number of manuscripts and the supposed proximity to the originals, then the Book of Mormon is superior in every way.

Neat huh? :grin:

No, not to me, but interesting.

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

06-04-2012, 12:39 PM	#26
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	There are hundreds of millions of copies of Twilight out there. Twilight dwarfs the Bible in terms of reliability.

06-04-2012, 03:23 PM	#28
Kapyong Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Perth Posts: 1,779	Hmmm... How many of those 24,000 copies were dated 40-70 years after the originals? The few early major manuscripts are dated around 200CE. P52 is a tiny fragment. The vast majority of MSS are dated centuries later. K.

06-04-2012, 04:43 PM	#29
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Again we see people here are NOT reallly willing to accept the DATED evidence but are using their Imagination to DICTATE when fragments were written. P 52 is NOT dated to 90 CE by Paleography but listed as c 125 CE and even later by some Paleographers. So the claim in the OP that writings of the Jesus story were made within 40-70 years is NOT credible and cannot be shown to be true. Again, the DATED evidence SHOWS a Big Black Hole for Jesus in the 1st century and beforee c 70 CE. There is NO DATED Evidence that can show any of the FAKE authors of the Canon was a Contemporary of Pilate the Governor or Caiaphas the high Priest.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.