Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-02-2002, 07:20 AM

I might add, I don't think a man who said love your neighbor as yourself, forgive someone 70 times 7, and angered Jewish authorities by spending time with prostitutes, tax collectors, women, and non-Jews, and broke religious laws like only eating kosher foods would make a comment that he was the only way to get to heaven, and all others would be cast into fire.

Polycarp · 07-02-2002, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:
I'm aware of that, of course. My curiousity is over the fact that P. Oxy 4404 (0104) was allegedly cited in the list of MSS witnesses in the NA26/UBS4 and is not listed in NA27/UBS5. I do not have a copy of NA26 to compare to.

Ahh... OK. I don't have NA 26. I have NA25, NA27, and UBS4. I would be surprised if NA26 used P104, since it only has 5 legible verses.

BTW, just to be anal, I think you meant NA27/UBS4. They haven't come out with a UBS 5th edition.

CX · 07-02-2002, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Polycarp:
[b]

Ahh... OK. I don't have NA 26. I have NA25, NA27, and UBS4. I would be surprised if NA26 used P104, since it only has 5 legible verses.

BTW, just to be anal, I think you meant NA27/UBS4. They haven't come out with a UBS 5th edition.

Quite right. I don't know why I was confused. NA26/27 share the same text which is equivalent to UBS4. ONly the critical apparatus was revised, albeit significantly, for NA27. Thanks for the astute observation.

CX · 07-02-2002, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
I agree, but that's the only evidence Christians have for their belief [snip]

Of course you're right, but then I long ago lost interest in discussions which treat the Xian NT as literal history rather than theological tractate with some historical content. My experience has been that such discussions are pointless and those who support such a view are ill-informed or dogmatically biased.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

Polycarp · 07-02-2002, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:
According to the Appendix in NA27, P6 contains only verses from GJn (10:1-2;4-7;9-10, 11:1-8;45-52). I see no reference to James.

Right, that’s because they only list the GREEK papyri in that section of NA27. In addition to the material you listed, P6 also contains COPTIC text of John 10:1-12, 20; 13:1-2,11-12; and… James 1:13-5:20. The James text is written in Coptic on P6, so that’s why it’s not listed as a Greek witness.

Quote:

Hmmm...I doubt it. P4 contains substantially more than the verses from GLk which are cited. I cannot understand why those two verses would be arbitrarily cited in lieu of all the others contained in P4 when the supposed intent of the reference is to establish early attestation for NT texts. This reference is most likely a mistake.

Oh, I agree that it’s definitely a mistake. I was just fishing for how they might have arrived at it. They probably found a citation in some obscure book that made the claim.

King Arthur · 07-02-2002, 03:02 PM

I too think that p6 on the inerrancy site I posted is wrong. I did some searching and believe that p4 is, as already noted, probably what was being referred to. As to p4's supposedly early date:

"In 1995, however, using modern techniques and evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were not available to C.H. Roberts, Thiede assigned a date of c. 60 AD to p64/67. Also, a similar reanalysis of p4, the Paris papyrus that had long been thought to belong with p64/67, has produced a new date of c. 100 AD or perhaps slightly older."

<a href="http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb4.09.htm" target="_blank">http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb4.09.htm</a>

In Comfort's newest book, however, which I happen to have, he dates p4 to the range 150 - 175 C.E.

Steven Carr · 07-03-2002, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:


There's history in the bible to be sure. You just have to feather it out from the myth.

There is history in 'A Tale of Two Cities'. Perhaps it has been wrongly classified as fiction.

Steven Carr · 07-03-2002, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:
I too think that p6 on the inerrancy site I posted is wrong. I did some searching and believe that p4 is, as already noted, probably what was being referred to. As to p4's supposedly early date:

"In 1995, however, using modern techniques and evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were not available to C.H. Roberts, Thiede assigned a date of c. 60 AD to p64/67. Also, a similar reanalysis of p4, the Paris papyrus that had long been thought to belong with p64/67, has produced a new date of c. 100 AD or perhaps slightly older."

<a href="http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb4.09.htm" target="_blank">http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb4.09.htm</a>

In Comfort's newest book, however, which I happen to have, he dates p4 to the range 150 - 175 C.E.

These techniques available to Thiede , but not to Roberts, are the techniques of making things up, exagarrating the evidence, and seeing things which are not there - all techniques unavailable to serious scholars.

Hasn't Thiede also claimed to have found the True Cross?

Steven Carr · 07-03-2002, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:
I too think that p6 on the inerrancy site I posted is wrong. I did some searching and believe that p4 is, as already noted, probably what was being referred to. As to p4's supposedly early date:

"In 1995, however, using modern techniques and evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were not available to C.H. Roberts, Thiede assigned a date of c. 60 AD to p64/67. Also, a similar reanalysis of p4, the Paris papyrus that had long been thought to belong with p64/67, has produced a new date of c. 100 AD or perhaps slightly older."

<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede2.txt" target="_blank">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede2.txt</a>
is an article on Thiedes dating.

King Arthur · 07-03-2002, 03:23 AM

Steven, in a wierd sorta way, I like you buddy, but you are one heckuva hyperskeptic!

You just seem to reject *anything* related to religion and/or the Bible. This gets *my* BS skeptics detector going. Not *everything* in religion and the Bible can be bogus. Give it a rest, man, nobody's out to getcha, so you don't have to sacrifice your integrity in order to try and demolish religions. Try being a skeptic to your own stuff. It's a pretty enlightening and liberating experience!

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

07-02-2002, 07:20 AM	#41
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I might add, I don't think a man who said love your neighbor as yourself, forgive someone 70 times 7, and angered Jewish authorities by spending time with prostitutes, tax collectors, women, and non-Jews, and broke religious laws like only eating kosher foods would make a comment that he was the only way to get to heaven, and all others would be cast into fire.

07-02-2002, 03:02 PM	#46
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	I too think that p6 on the inerrancy site I posted is wrong. I did some searching and believe that p4 is, as already noted, probably what was being referred to. As to p4's supposedly early date: "In 1995, however, using modern techniques and evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were not available to C.H. Roberts, Thiede assigned a date of c. 60 AD to p64/67. Also, a similar reanalysis of p4, the Paris papyrus that had long been thought to belong with p64/67, has produced a new date of c. 100 AD or perhaps slightly older." <a href="http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb4.09.htm" target="_blank">http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb4.09.htm</a> In Comfort's newest book, however, which I happen to have, he dates p4 to the range 150 - 175 C.E.

07-03-2002, 03:23 AM	#50
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	Steven, in a wierd sorta way, I like you buddy, but you are one heckuva hyperskeptic! You just seem to reject anything related to religion and/or the Bible. This gets my BS skeptics detector going. Not everything in religion and the Bible can be bogus. Give it a rest, man, nobody's out to getcha, so you don't have to sacrifice your integrity in order to try and demolish religions. Try being a skeptic to your own stuff. It's a pretty enlightening and liberating experience!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.