Vorkosigan

The posts are nothing new, merely rehashes of Philip Comfort's claims, Kim's claims, and the generally accepted date of 200 for p46. Until new evidence is presented, the generally accepted date will have to stand.

Vorkosigan

Haran

And I suspect that views similar to yours will keep some MSS from being dated accurately, as well. It cuts both ways.

As far as the dating of p46, the more scholars that look at Kim's work, the more opinions will be formed other than the handful that did not agree with him.

BTW, the thread a year or so ago did nothing to refute Kim's work. Most here don't know the first thing about Palaeography. The only thing done in that thread was to present the views of that handful of scholars who disagreed. I respect John Lupia's opinions, and so I was pleasantly surprised to find another scholar who was analyzing the evidence and finding that there might actually be some meat behind Kim's findings. I know of at least one other respected textual critic who has included Kim's findings on his website (with caveat).

Perhaps Kim is not right, but it has certainly gotten my attention that other respected scholars are comparing the MSS for themselves and actually finding Kim's discovery plausible.

Be careful, V., for all its reason, atheism can blind someone to the truth as well. You are no less prone to emotion in issues such as these, as I believe is obvious from your comments.

Haran

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

wordsmyth

Does anyone have a link that shows the geneaology of modern english bibles and what ancient texts they are based on?

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Haran:
And I suspect that views similar to yours will keep some MSS from being dated accurately, as well. It cuts both ways.

Name them. Your point is absurd; New Testament studies is dominated by Xtians who are faith-committed to certain positions.

BTW, the thread a year or so ago did nothing to refute Kim's work. Most here don't know the first thing about Palaeography. The only thing done in that thread was to present the views of that handful of scholars who disagreed.

It didn't need to refute Kim; that was done by Bruce Griffin. The person who presented that thread was honor-bound to present evidence in Kim's favor but was unable. Since no new evidence or argument was presented the status quo -- going on a half century, and reaffirmed just a few years ago -- will have to stand. p46 is a late document.

Perhaps Kim is not right, but it has certainly gotten my attention that other respected scholars are comparing the MSS for themselves and actually finding Kim's discovery plausible.

Kim did not make a discovery, he made an assertion. BTW, do you know who this Kim is? Nobody in the field seems to know him, and we were unable to find him despite numerous inquiries.

Be careful, V., for all its reason, atheism can blind someone to the truth as well. You are
no less prone to emotion in issues such as these

That is why, in areas where scholars are legitimately competent, I go with the concensus. It helps that I have no expertise myself, and so must consult experts. I am committed to only one position that I know is an outlier, and that is that John 21 was the original ending of Mark. I find the arguments of Streeter and Powell persuasive in that regard.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Name what? My point is that ideas like yours almost force people into accepting late dates for MSS simply because you don't think it could've happened the way Christians say it did.

My point is well proven by the fact that scholars years ago thought the Gospel of John was later than it was. I imagine they had just as hard a time accepting that p52 was as early as it was because of their bias: "Oh no. The Gospel of John couldn't have been around that early..."

BTW, these "Christian" scholars that you mention are either very liberal or non-existent. Why do you think it is nearly impossible to date a MSS early if there are so many biased "Christians" working in the field. Give me a break. This is pure unadulterated rhetoric. You really need to examine your own biases, V.

V., perhaps you don't know, but in a circumstance like this the only "new evidence" that is needed is for like-minded scholars to come to a different conclusion. The author of the thread still believed (I think) that Kim's conclusions might be correct, but scholars at the time did not seem very partial to Kim's findings.

Hah! Can you not see your biases? Scholars know who he is. It makes no difference that we cannot find him on the internet... If scholars take him somewhat seriously, which obviously they do if they felt the need to attempt a rebuttal, then your statements are completely unwarranted and biased.

That is until the consensus doesn't go your way. One can see it in the tone of your posts...

Where did that come from? I don't think I've heard many true scholars propose this point of view. It's not in any of the most reputable books that I've read. In other words, you're already showing that you will accept a minority position, even though I'm not sure why you included this.

Please, V., no offense meant, but look inward at your own biases. They are painfully obvious in this thread. We all have them, but when extreme like this, they can blind you without you even recognizing it. Let me show you... What if Kim is truly right about p46? Are you willing to sacrifice that truth to the majority of scholars simply because you think Christians are trying to date the papyrus early and because you don't think that any/many MSS could be that early anyway? What happens if ideas like yours are slowing and corrupting the data we receive? You don't have to agree. Just think about it. I'm forced to think about late dates constantly.

Haran

Haran

Also, V., you seem to imply that John Lupia must be a biased Christian if he is questioning the dating of p46 based on Kim's research.

Is he even a Christian or are you just assuming? Personally, I have no idea, nor does it matter to me if he is being honest with the data.

Haran

Haran

There are probably other sites, but <a href="http://greatsite.com/engbibhis/index.html" target="_blank">greatsite.com</a> has a pretty good History of the Bible section.

I would suggest a few books. I will warn you ahead of time that the author is a conservative christian scholar (note the emphasis on scholar). Anyway, though you may not agree with some of his conclusions in the book, if you can look past them there is a goldmine of information about where modern versions of the Bible come from. I have read these books and they are excellent. As a quick aside, Comfort does not subscribe to KJV only and usually explains why in his books...

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/084233484X/qid=1020689850/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_12/102-5350168-8124115" target="_blank">Essential Guide to Bible Versions</a> (this is probably the information you're after)
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801020980/qid=1020689882/sr=1-22/ref=sr_1_22/102-5350168-8124115" target="_blank">Early MSS and Modern Translations of the New Testament</a> (contains pictures of some manuscripts and information on several and how they have influenced modern translations)
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0842347356/qid=1020689830/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-5350168-8124115" target="_blank">The Origin of the Bible</a>

Hope this info helps as well.

Haran

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Name what? My point is that ideas like yours almost force people into accepting late dates for MSS simply because you don't think it could've happened the way Christians say it did.

It obviously didn't happen the way Christians say it did, since they've been forced to retreat from "....the gospels were were written by witnesses" to "..the gospels were written using earlier sources, like Q, etc...." It's been two hundred years of retreat.

I asked you to name the manuscripts that you thought had been dated late because of the alleged bias of a field filled with committed Christians. You did give an excellent example below, BTW.

My point is well proven by the fact that scholars years ago thought the Gospel of John was later than it was. I imagine they had just as hard a time accepting that p52 was as early as it was because of their bias: "Oh no. The Gospel of John couldn't have been around that early..."

&lt;shrug&gt; But when the evidence arrived....

BTW, these "Christian" scholars that you mention are either very liberal or non-existent. Why do you think it is nearly impossible to date a MSS early if there are so many biased "Christians" working in the field. Give me a break. This is pure unadulterated rhetoric. You really need to examine your own biases, V.

What do you mean by "early" and "late?" Early to me for Mark is 70, for you, I imagine it is 55 or even 40.

Where did that come from? I don't think I've heard many true scholars propose this point of view. It's not in any of the most reputable books that I've read. In other words, you're already showing that you will accept a minority position, even though I'm not sure why you included this.

I included it to be as honest with you as you always are with me. Are you aware of Streeter's and Powell's arguments on the ending of Mark and its relationship to John?

Please, V., no offense meant, but look inward at your own biases. They are painfully obvious in this thread. We all have them, but when extreme like this, they can blind you without you even recognizing it. Let me show you... What if Kim is truly right about p46? Are you willing to sacrifice that truth to the majority of scholars simply because you think Christians are trying to date the papyrus early and because you don't think that any/many MSS could be that early anyway?

Don't be silly. First, I do think some manuscripts can be that early. Second, what if he is right? It doesn't mean anything to me either way; I have no trouble accepting a date of 85-100 for p46. It doesn't affect my positions on early Christianity one iota.

What happens if ideas like yours are slowing and corrupting the data we receive? You don't have to agree. Just think about it. I'm forced to think about late dates constantly.

I'm forced to think about early ones constantly.

Hah! Can you not see your biases? Scholars know who he is. It makes no difference that we cannot find him on the internet...

Haran, I will forgive your ignorance. We wrote and called all over the world looking for Kim, but nobody seemed to know who he was. He does not seem to be a figure in NT or paleographic studies, has published just this one paper, and has no other publications. I'm not asking a rhetorical question; I'm asking a serious one: who the hell is this Kim? Nobody seems to know who he is.

If scholars take him somewhat seriously, which obviously they do if they felt the need to attempt a rebuttal, then your statements are completely unwarranted and biased.

Yet above, you dismissed the arguments of Streeter and Powell -- Streeter is a major figure -- on Mark and John because they were not held by reputable scholars. Now I wonder about the repute of Kim, and you tell me I'm biased. Whose biases are showing here, Haran?

That is until the consensus doesn't go your way. One can see it in the tone of your posts...

List one issue in which I am not with the consensus in the legitimate area of competence, other than the one I gave.

Vorkosigan

Haran

These kinds of comments are what I am talking about when I say your views seem highly biased.

You say: "It obviously didn't happen the way Christians say it did"

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about with this statement, but I infer that you are talking about the papyri and "early" dating. If so, then how can you make this comment with such surety? I've done quite a bit of study and I could never assert such a thing.

And all the talk of Christians "retreating" from their conclusions is silly to me. I could make the same claim of secular scholars who have been forced to retreat from some of their biased and erroneous views. In fact, I don't see (if we must put it in silly terms like these) that either side has lost or gained much ground at all.

BTW, the "Q" theory has its respectable opponents. Personally, I find "Q" an interesting theory but well within the questionable methods of recent secular scholarship, by which I mean that method whereby they overanalyze texts and chop them up into what they perceive to be separately and/or independantly composed pieces. It stretches my sense of what can resonably be determined. I don't put much stock in "Q", nor in the Documentary Hypothesis of the OT. One can get a better feel for how fluid and almost silly the whole process is by reading about all the changes and near reversals in the history of JEPD, no I mean JEDP, no... Well, you get the point.

I'm sorry. I didn't understand this comment on what I said about p52. Secular scholars of the time were forced to reevaluate their opinions about the dating of GJn based on p52.

I'm not talking about the dating of the actual gospels, only the dating of the MSS. If we find a MSS from before 70A.D. (which would doubtfully be recognized since so many would not allow themselves to believe it), then the date of Mark would obviously be pushed back before 70A.D. to allow time for copying.

I believe I've read an article about this on the internet. If you have the link, I'd appreciate being able to read it again.

I'm confused. We don't sound that far apart here. However, your first statements above, unless I took them wrong, seem to indicate otherwise (i.e. that you couldn't accept an early date because it just didn't happen the way Christians say it did...)

I'm confused here as well... What do you mean by "early"? Most MSS we have are dated well after the majority believe the autographs were written. How can any of these dates seem "early" to you?

My only ignorance is in not knowing what the people discussing things in that thread did in their spare time to find out who Kim is. I have no idea what those people did, so I cannot comment on whether their search was thorough enough. I'm sure the man can be found, his work made too many ripples for him to be a "nobody" as you seem to imply. Perhaps no one asked the right people. I'm positive there are good scholars who know who and where Kim is and what he does.

Am I really this unclear?

I did not mean to "dismiss" their arguments. I was simply trying to point out that you had criticized me for supporting a minority view or at least not following the majority and yet you seem to be supporting, in this thesis, a minority view. Streeter is good, though I am not familiar with Powell, however, many scholars have their "pet minority theories" that they like to work on and at times present (preferably through others).

Finally, Kim's views on p46 may eventually come to be the majority scholar view...maybe. If they do, can you accept it or will you then follow the minority view, saying "it did not happen the way Christians say it did"?

Haran

Haran

P.S. You all might follow the "Dating P46" thread on the TC-List. It could get interesting (or fizzle out). Who knows?

Haran