Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-26-2002, 08:02 AM | #21 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
ReasonableDoubt, I also noticed that assertion in the Ecole Glossary. However, it is not my claim that this statue is an accurate or original depiction of Hippolytus. It is possible that the statue was an adaptation of a pagan piece of art. However, the inscription clearly dates to the third century, most obviously because of the list of Easter dates starting in 222, which coheres with what we know of Hippolytus' period of activity from literary sources.
best, Peter Kirby |
08-26-2002, 08:38 AM | #22 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
|
Quote:
Your initial quote includes the phrase: Quote:
|
||
08-26-2002, 08:43 AM | #23 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
ReasonableDoubt: I'm sorry, but I really do not understand. If, for example, it turned out that the statue was 'adapted' in the 5th-6th century CE or later, what becomes of the probative value of the Easter dates?
You have added the stipulation that the adaptation happened in the 5th-6th century. It is clear to me that an adaptation, if there were one, happened in the third century. ReasonableDoubt: I'd be curious to learn what these "good reasons" might have been. The author is long dead and is not available to field our questions. But since you show an interest, I will let you know if I read anything more on the Hippolytus statue and inscription. best, Peter Kirby |
08-26-2002, 01:48 PM | #24 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
|
Quote:
But what I'm saying is that a tiny and unprovenanced scrap of writing like p52 cannot be dated at all with any such certainty. And furthermore, even real (i.e. very long) MSS cannot really be dated within the date range of +/- 25 years. Generally speaking, a date range of +/- 100 years is a lot more reasonable and honest (although there may be a few exceptions, perhaps). Also, I see that CX has posted in this thread some pretty good info about the conventional dating of p52. Since this relates specifically to p52, I will soon post in the other thread (the Rylands Papyrus fraud) some more recent info about this. All the best, Yuri. |
|
08-27-2002, 06:16 PM | #25 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
|
Quote:
|
|
08-28-2002, 01:23 AM | #26 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Reasonable,
I think you need to look for a paleaographical text book like Thompsons (http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm?&ID=32800) although something more up to date may be around by now. This is a well established subject in many universities and is used in mainstream history so it is not a big Christian conspiracy as Yuri seems to be suggesting here and elsewhere. Yours Bede PS: As I mentioned to Toto, I have been exiled to Germany for six weeks and seriously lack net time. |
08-31-2002, 03:48 PM | #27 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
That is, in simpler English, since the fragment we have has been dated around 125 A.D. that means that the original (unless the fragment we have is the original!) must have been written earlier -- approx. in the first century. |
|
08-31-2002, 03:56 PM | #28 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
|
|
08-31-2002, 04:01 PM | #29 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
|
|
08-31-2002, 04:13 PM | #30 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|