EarlDoherty

Going back a bit...

Stonewall objected that this principle would destroy history. If strictly applied, this would largely be true.

But in principle, Pat is right. And the principle applies in most sciences. When Wegener declared his theory of continental drift, the geology discipline at the time was right in demanding proof. (They were not right in simply ridiculing it, as so many did, since they should have had more of an open mind and should have considered the possibility that the future might ridicule them.) But every theory in science should demand evidence.

But let's be practical in regard to history. Should I demand proof that Julius Caesar gave us a reasonably accurate historical account of his conquest of Gaul, else I won't accept it even as probably so? Some incidental evidence may be brought to bear on that accuracy, but generally speaking, it's a demand that can't be met. Much of our sources for ancient history are a lot like that, and if we keep to the principle, we'd have to assume that we know very little. (Some actually maintain that.)

But if a challenger presented reasons to think that Caesar was someone who might have distorted the facts for his own purposes, or if some incidental evidence did exist which called them into question, then we would need to bring some skepticism to Caesar's account--and suffer the consequences.

In the case of Christianity, we have many reasons to think that Christian writers were people who distorted the facts for their own purposes, and evidence does exist to call those "facts" into question. It is on such a basis that the negator can make his challenge, that the burden of proof is on the asserter. By presenting those two elements just described, he has met his own burden. They are, or should be, so well known to people who frequent a board like this that in fact he may not even have to restate them.

So while Pat's position may not be so applicable in the realm of science, in the realm of Christian history I would give him the nod.

(I'm one who thinks that principles are dangerous. You have to be pragmatic in applying them.)

Earl Doherty

patcleaver

Mostly copied from a previous post here: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...er#post5397286

All the datings of P52 and other so called gospel fragments are just a little better then guesses.

In 1935, P52 was dated by C. F. Roberts to 100-150 CE based on handwriting analysis (see C. H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library (Manchester, 1935) 16).

In 1989 A Schmidt dated P52 to 150-200 (see A. Schmidt, ‘Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457’, APF 35 (1989) 11–12).

Brent Nongbri, The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel, in: Harvard Theological Review 98 (2005), 23-48. Essentially, it seems, the margin in dating such a manuscript is so large that palaeography in this case cannot serve to disprove (or prove) “Tübingen” [300 CE]. Although the preponderance of hands most similar to P52 are found in the first three decades of the 2nd century, nevertheless there are other examples of hands with similar characteristics dated as late as 152 CE - and that a prudent margin of error must allow the possibility of P52 being younger still by several decades (or equally, as much as a century older). Which of course does not mean that GJohn cannot be “early”, but any date has to be argued based on something besides mere handwriting style. Nongbri shows that even an early third-century date is possible for P52, and he concludes:

“What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that 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.” (p. 46).

Handwriting analysis has been shown to be reliable within 100 years for Egyptian inscriptions, by statistical analysis (citation needed). However, there is no statistical analysis, that I am aware of, that the handwriting analysis for dating early documents such as P52 is reliable. The John Rylands Library used to claim that P52 was dated 125 +- 25, but now only says that it is 2nd century, and they also say that dating should not be relied upon.

Problems with handwriting analysis:
1) Papyrus is fragile and only lasted about 20 years in use, so it had to be recopied every 20 years or so, and copiers usually made copies in the original handwriting style. Handwriting style is much more reliable for originals such as inscriptions and tablets.
2) Even in ancient times, forgers knew to forge documents in ancient handwriting styles.
3) The vast majority of ancient documents are lost, so a handwriting style may have been in use many decades earlier and hundreds of years later than any extent examples that we have of that handwriting style.
4) errors proliferate when ancient documents that are misdated are used to date other ancient documents.
5) many early documents such as P52 were not discovered by archeologists in site, but were purchased from antiquities dealers. Forgery of antiquities sold by such dealers is rampant, and it is impossible to know whether P52 is a forged antique or not. Even carbon dating would only prove that the paper itself was ancient.

for background see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52

The so called fragments of gospels such as P52, may not be fragments of gospels at all, but simply portions of pre-gospel materials that the gospels were consolidated into at a much later time.

For most early fragments of the bible, we can only guess when or where they were originally found.

For example, the Codex Khaburis (Khaboris , Khabouris) was a Syriac version of the bible on vellum/parchment (sheep skin). It was originally dated in 1966 to 120 CE based on handwriting analysis. Later in 1995 it was dated to 300 by handwriting analysis, but dated to 1250 CE based on forensic examination of the sheepskin pages (not handwriting). Later in 1999 the vellum was carbon dated to 1040-1090 CE. It was probably copied many times, perhaps dozens of times between 300 and 1050, and each time the copier used the original handwriting style. The copier even copied notes in the margin, in a different handwriting style, that may be from around 500 CE.

I am amazed that earlier date from the forensic examination of the sheepskin was within 185 years of the far more accurate carbon dating.


There is a brief article about the Khaburis Codex (A Syriac Peshitta NT) here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaboris_Codex

Wikipedia is incorrect about the carbon date - see
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/ArtGallery/P...escription.asp

The bottom line is that the dating of P52 and similar biblical fragments, based on handwriting analysis, is really just best guess or speculation.

EarlDoherty

And also to be fair...

But Pat, this is pointless. The Historia Augusta are not reliable, so your final statement is not based on anything. Even I might like to accept it as true, but I can't on the basis of your argument. What I suggested was that you try to use the same reasoning assuming it is a 4th century Christian invention. But that does not seem possible.

I have given up trying to read the statement in isolation as ambiguous, because even if technically speaking it were, it can't be divorced from that context. It is virtually impossible that a 4th century Christian would intend or be in a position to say that followers of Serapis in the 2nd century called themselves "Chrestians". And it is highly unlikely that he is inadvertently drawing on something which actually did say that.

[But thanks very much for that outline on P52.]

Earl Doherty

stonewall1012

[QUOTE=EarlDoherty;5450362]Going back a bit...

Once again well thought out and reasoned. However, the problem here is simply not one of being "principled" or not; "practical" or not. Wanting to "skip ahead" to talking about christian documents and textual criticism with out addressing this issue is impatient.

I have neither asserted they are or are not reliable. What I have objected to is this method of a negator deciding what the "default" position is or receiving a less equitable burden of proof. This methodolgy provides the "negator" a decided advantage when discussing the truth or falsehood of any claim. The negator get's to decide what is proven or not, the negator gets to decide how much "burden of proof" they wish to assume or not.

When a person questions an assertion there IS no "default" position. If the person questioning the assertion wishes to assert his/her own assertion as fact that is fine. But let us examine your own arguement.

Because Some Christian scribes interpolated does it logically follow that All Christian writers interpolated? No it does not.
You have assumed that proof that some ancient texts were interpolated proves that All christian text are interpolated and the burden of DISPROVING this assertion is not on the asserter but on the negator. (IE the person claiming NOT all Christian Texts are interpolated.) When did we shift burned of proof from the asserter to the disprover?

In other words you have not carefully examined what "evidence" prooves or disproves. You have, in your own example, shown how your using the negation as an assumed "default" assertion and how this provides certain Rhetorical advantages.
So that when it suites you, the burden of proof shifts from the asserter to the negator and back again depending upon what you wish to assert.

Now I am not trying to prove or disprove interpolations. I am try to demonstrate how this "principle" is selectively enforced. Anyone making an assertion should bear the burden of proof. Period.

stonewall1012

Patcleaver: great job on pulling all that out... You have certainly made the point that some contest the P52 document. It shows me to be more careful. I hit several sources on P52 and did not rely just upon wikepedia (known to be some what innacurate)

But my central point still stands... Handwritting analysis you disbelieve, and Stark you believe enough to state his assumptions as historical fact. If you wish to be consistant just label them both as controversial and be done with it...

I'll admit when I'm wrong... P52 isn't as clear cut as it seems... great that's what it means to learn.

Amaleq13

I am joining you in assuming it for "arguments sake" and simply reading the text. That's kind of a nonsensical question given what I've written. Makes it appear as though you have actually read the posts.

No. I'm assuming nothing that isn't in the text. I think this is the same answer for most of your questions.

I don't know. Apparently, nobody knows.

I don't see how any of those answers help you understand my explanation. :huh:

patcleaver

Earl, thanks for your comments.

I respectfully disagree that following the same rules for establishing facts as in philosophy, law, social sciences and physical sciences (in fact all other fields that I am aware of) would destroy history.

When you do not have sufficient evidence to verify that something is more likely than not, I do not think that admitting that something in history is the best hypotheses or the most likely explanation is inferior in some way to claiming that its an historical fact.

Students who are taught the meaning of words like fact and hypotheses in other fields are going to feel mislead when they find out that all the "historical facts" that they learned are not really facts like they are in other fields.

I sometimes hear people say that history is just bullshit, and it annoys me that history does not have the reputation of other endeavors. If historians are not consistent with other fields about the measure of their level of confidence in their data and conclusions, then the field of history is just going to be further discredited.

stonewall1012

For one who told you the assisine assumption that a negation is the "default" position for philosophy, law, social sciences, economics ect al.? It is not, all assertions should be proven if one wants to claim using logic. If you don't believe me go ahead and ask a philosophy professor if a person asserting a negation is considered the "default" assertion and is not required to prove his negative assertion.

You for one would be astounded what is considered fact and not "intepretation" for example the FACT of the Law of gravity is hardly established.
Law implies that it is something that CANNOT be broken. It is a 17the century linguistic interpretation of how the universe works. (mechanistic world view)
Secondly the law is an intepretation of the FACT that when we jump off of buildings we go splat. Why do we fall when we jump? The Law of gravity provides us a very reasonable and (I believe) a believeable explination for the FACT that we don't just fly off of cliffs.
We assert the Law of Gravity as Fact because no one can come up with a better explination of the phenomina of people not flying off of a giant spinning sphere. But the FACT is we don't fly off this spinning ball and the Law of Gravity provides us a reasonable explination for this FACT but this explination is not FACT it is explination. Stricly speaking.

Ask a psychologist for a definative TEST to prove mental illness.
Ask a sociologist whether it is nuture or nature that most influences human behavior.
All fields seem impervious to outsiders but like history every field (to include science) has problems.

patcleaver

From what source are you quoting "There are those" it is not in the translation that andrewcriddle supplies and that we have been using.

Yes, I agree that there seems to be two groups. One group calls its deity Serapis, and the other group calls its deity Christ. The issue is who is this Christ and who are the Christians and the Bishop's of Christ.

Where does it say "Some of those"

1. If you assume that in Alexandria in 135 CE that the Christians are followers of JON (Jesus of Nazareth); and that there are thousands of followers of JON in Alexandria; and only JON was called Christ; and the highest religious official of the Roman Empire worships with both the followers of JON and worships with the followers of Serapis; then the second sentence above still does not make sense.

2. If you assume that the Christians are Samarians who follow Simon Magus; and that there are thousands of these Samarians; and that they follow a spiritual Christ; then it does not make sense that Hadrian names both Samarians and Christens in the third sentence; and the second sentence still does not make sense.

3. If you assume that there is a first group of worshiper's of Serapis that are called Christians; and that there is a second group called Bishops of Christ who are also devotees of Serapis; and that one group of Serapis followers calls its deity Serapis; and the other group of Serapis followers calls the deity Christ; then the second, third and fourth sentences in the above quote all makes sense.

No, that is a non-sequitur. The fact that a group of people are "wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor" does not necessarily mean or even suggest that they "lack a solid grounding in any one faith".

If they lacked a solid grounding in one faith, then that would support the statement that they were "light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor".

Alternatively, if there are two groups of Serapis followers who are feuding about what they are to be called and what the deity is to be called then that would also support the statement that they were "light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor".

-------------------------------

This first sentence could be completely independent from the following sentences. It could be just a separate complaint from the following complaints.

Alternatively, the third and fourth sentences above could support the first sentence, and the second sentence in the above quote could be just an aside that defines a few things for the third and fourth sentences. The second sentence just explains who the worshipers of Serapis are, who the Christians are, who the bishops of Christ are, who the devotees of Serapis are.

--------------------------------

I think that the third set of assumptions are the most likely. If you prefer the first or second set of assumptions then I can respect that. What I can not respect is dogmatism about this ambiguous document.

andrewcriddle

Please can you give the name of any genuine paleographer who dated
the script of Codex Khaburis to before 500 CE ?

I'm getting a bit tired of the repetition of these bogus claims.

Andrew Criddle