David Conklin

From an email on this subject:

"When I encounter, in my reading, opinions of paleographers, they often date manuscripts to within a decade. I'm talking about manuscripts from around the turn of the epoch BC-AD. When, about 1920, the many papyri were discovered in the sands in Egypt, many of these contained historical references which allowed them to be assigned exact dates. So, on the basis of these papyri, quite a bit is known about how the handwriting changed over the decades and centuries that these documents represent. My personal opinion is that, for the most part, the assignment of dates to manuscripts from about 4 or 5 BC onward are fairly accurate. Earlier dates can also be established but probably not with quite so much accuracy."

I also asked ab't copying an older styleand that affecting the date of the mss:

"It seems unlikely that a manuscript would be purposely copied in an atiquated style. The people who did the work of scribes were, for the most part professionals who constantly worked at copying and taking dictation--or if not professionals, then dedicated to that work, as in the case of monks. They developed their way of writing according to the style of the time and its use was, for them, a matter of habit. Writing in the style of another time is not easy; it would be like trying to forge someone else's signature.

I also wonder if it would have occurred to scribes of that time to write in the handwriting of a previous epoch."

Jayhawker Soule

Oh wow - an anonymous email. That's so much better than evidence. Thanks a lot!

David Conklin

It wasn't anon. to me. Check out what he says.

Biff the unclean

Not only isn't that true, it's a down right silly thing to say.
These days, for those scribes copying biblical text it's even the common practice.
Here's an example. We have very firm dates for the creation of the Book of Kells. Admittedly much, much newer than what we are talking about, but please bear with me.
Kells was written by three major (and a few touch-up artists) scribes. They all used exactly the same ink so there is a good chance that they were working at the same time, even in the same room.
Hand "A" does the beginning of the book and most of the Gospel of Saint John. He uses a very modern (for the day) style. A lot of majuscule forms and only a few conceits like superscribed letters.
But Hand "C" uses a style that's at least five hundred years older than that used by "A." It's thought that he wanted to lend more of an air of importance to his sections and so chose the classic hand.
Now, had the Books of Kells not survived in such good condition but was only fragments… And if the fragment we had was written by Hand "C"… And if we dated it only by the style of the script, then we would date it as five hundred years older than Hand "A"'s time. Even though the two scribes shared the same inkwell.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>

Sojourner553

Biff,

Despite your example with the Kells -- I do not see how this applies to the New Testament because I do not see this type of emphasis on authentic antiquity during this time to even WANT to forge an older text style.

Until you have better evidence than this, is this really wise to pursue this?

Take an analogy: Ask me if I think the DNA evidence proving OJ Simpson was a killer could have been faked?

I will answer, "of course". But, I will also add "the preponderance of evidence is against it."

I think the same applies here.


Sojourner

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Biff the unclean

I like how you used the term "forge an older text style." That "forge" is there only to misrepresent what I am saying. Obviously you aren't too sure of your case or you wouldn't try such tactics.
Between 0 CE and 325 CE there were no changes in writing materials, papyrus and vellum were made exactly the same way. Pens were still cut from crow and goose flight feathers and reeds. Ink was still made from carbon black or oak galls. How do you "forge" a script style? You like it, you write in it.
Frankly you have not presented any evidence that there is a notable change in style between the scraps you claim to be second century and the pieces known to be from the fourth. You claim to have "expert paleographers" and we should trust them. Fine, but wait until I contact my experts in phrenology and feng shui and we'll see what they have to say. LOL.
I take it that you consider the church fathers of 325 CE above suspicion. Eusebius who went from being a pariah to one of the richest men in the world because of Christianity by inventing a miracle. Eusebius who boasted in print (The Preparation of the Gospel ) "It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment." Constantine the bastard son of a tavern girl who went into self imposed exile and had a "vision" from the "Prince of Peace" that enabled him to kill thousands of people and overthrow the Imperial Government. Constantine the Mithrain who dictated what was orthodox Christianity and what was apocryphal. Constantine who as soon as he finished over seeing the very first Ecumenical Council murdered his wife Fausta and his son Crispus.
These are the people you want us to trust? Odd that you should bring up O.J. Simpson when you are trying to pass these gentlemen off as innocent. "If de toga don' fit you mus' acquit."
You had better play the "race card" because you don't have evidence, only bluster.

Jayhawker Soule

That hardly constitutes a reason for confidence.

• "When I encounter, ..."
• "My personal opinion is that, for the most part, ..."
• "It seems unlikely that ..."
• "I also wonder if ..."

Thanks for sharing.

Sojourner553

No I was trying to get into the mindset of why an ancient Christian would have wanted to write in an older style. I didn't think pompousness explained it -- so I went straight to forgery. I didn't see how there would be a need for this back then.

I think that is one reason why I found your Kells example irrelevent -- there wasn't a major change in style for anyone to imitate.


Er? Are you sure you are addressing the right person?

Do you mistake me for a Christian? No I agree Eusebius was wicked. But his distortions are pretty obvious: For example: Pilate did NOT suffer divine retribution for his role in sentencing Jesus, there was no succession lists of bishops that go all the way to Peter, etc etc,

As for Constantine -- you left out how he murdered his ex-rival Licinius to become absolute Emperor of Rome, he had his second wife boiled alive and his own son killed as well-- this shortly AFTER officiating at the Christian Council of Nicene.

But I also try to find the truth wherever it takes me. There are easier explanations that yours that explain ALL the facts.

Extraordinary claims require proof. My only point was that until you find some real evidence, maybe you shouldn't embarass the rest of us on this topic -- ie can't we talk about some of the REAL issues like: is Christianity a true religion vs a superstition. This topic isn't where it's at.

Thank you.

Sojourner

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

David Conklin

Better break the news to Bruce Metzger who wrote a book on the subject.

As for your Kells analogy it would "fly" better if you showed us where this actually happened and where it happened in NT mss. I can't show a negative.

David Conklin

It wasn't meant to. It calls into question the idea that the mss can't be dated quite accurately. It provides a starting point; i.e., start reading books on paleography and see if it says what he says they say.