| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Yuri Kuchinsky" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2003 03:41:56 PM |
| Object: |
translated from the Greek? |
"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
.
|
|
| User: "Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
08 Nov 2003 02:18:47 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FA99AF3.711D7D68@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymos wrote:
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:0e62a3e9997cb4d52f15420d863c8e2a@news.scbiz.com...
Didymos wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:3FA0453F.A4D58906@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:<3F9D9DCF.8124FF6E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting
stories
about
the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why
the
ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek
gospels
should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our
modern
New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next
door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the
dialects
of
Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely
impossible
that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have
seeped
north
across
that border!
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always
prided
itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But,
you
see,
they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus'
teachings
from
Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation
Service!
Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border
with
Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking
missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for
some
such
early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are
fleeing
to
Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would
always
welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now
translate
into
Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down
here
for
you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus,
some
other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into
Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our
Aramaic-speaking
cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any
case,
but
since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up
here, in
your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing...
Who's
paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=-
Toronto
===>It is a cute story,
Thanks, Libertarius!
and might even be plausible, were it not for
the fact that all of the "Gospels" show the influence of the
teachings
of
Saul/Paul of Tarsus,
Yes, if we accept the conventional interpretation of who
Saul/Paul
of
Tarsus was, and of what he stood for, then this would be so.
But there's also room to doubt if this conventional
interpretation
is
entirely correct... Myself, I think that the real Saul/Paul
stood a
lot closer to Judaism than most people believe.
===>The opposite of that is apparent from the fragmentary
Ebionite material. And, of course, as Christianity turned out, it
is indeed a product of someone familiar with, if not believing in,
the Mystery Religion and adopting the "Jesus messianism" to
create a new form of it, as the character Saul/Paul was most
equipped and most likely to do.
and there is NOTHING to show that any "Gospel"
existed before the second century. -- L.
Yes, together with Alfred Loisy, I believe that the conventional
gospels (as we see them now) only started to emerge ca. 100 CE.
===>Right. Possibly even later than that. -- L.
How then can you explain the existence of P-52, P-104, and Egerton?
Do
not
all of these come periously close to rendering your 100 A.D. date
untenable?
===>No.
Even if the dates were earlier,
a few words a book do not make. -- L.
And why is that the case?
How do you interpret "about" when you refer to a date of a manuscript?
I
take it as plus or minus 25 years.
No reply? Why not? Was the question not reasonable?
Is it something like a complete manuscript must be discovered, analyzed,
and
some concensus arrived at for a date before it is considered evidence
that a
manuscript was extant?
===>YES, of course.
Why won't fragments suffice to establish that a manuscript was extant even
though no complete early copy is known to be extant? Would say, 4 folios of
Homeric Hymns be adequate to establish that they were extant at a certain
date? How about the sole representative of Family D of Plotinus' "Enneads,"
does not this early though badly deteriorated manuscript Marcianus Graecus
209 demonstrate the earliest existence of the "Enneads"? How about 4 folios
of Mark dated to 75? Since those folios would probably not contain the
entirety of Mark's gospel, is it your position that a discovery of this
nature would not tend to prove the existence of the gospel of Mark at 75
A.D.?
Do you believe it is fair and reasonable to apply the identical criteria to
dating non-Christian manuscripts as the dating of Christian manuscripts? If
so, what are the oldest manuscripts by or about Julius Caesar? Does the
lack of contemporary manuscripts negate Caesar's existence or move him up a
few centuries? What is the oldest extant manuscript of the six primary
sources for Julius Caesar? How about for Augustus? Or perhaps we should
use your system and declare that much like the relationship between Jesus
and Paul, Julius Caesar was just someone Gaius (Caligula) made up a hundred
years later to justify his reign and claim to deity? Shall we do that?
If you are reluctant to admit P-52 into evidence, how about P-104? How
about P-66? Does it contain enough words from the Gospel of John on its 156
pages to be admitted as evidence in your system? Do you dispute that this
manuscript was probably written in the middle of the 2nd century? How about
P-75? Does it not contain 20 leaves of John's Gospel? Is it not late 2nd
century? And then of course there is P. Oxy. 3523. Or is this too small or
containing insuficient words or too damaged for your consideration?
Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus) with a few words on
it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a book by no
means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later,
was what that scrap came from.
Can you please tell me where I can find a postage stamp that is the size of
P-52 or P-104? How large are these fragments exactly?
Is that what you believe the term "fragment" exclusively means? But what if
that "postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus)" dated to 125 contains
nearly the same words in the same order in the same "hand" as a mansucript
of say, 25 to 50 years later? And yet another manuscript dated 50-75 years
later?
What happens to your theory when a mostly complete manuscript of a book
of
the New Testament is discovered from say, 100 or even 90?
===>What "theory"?
I have no theory. Only discuss facts.
Only facts, eh? What is factual about your declaration, presumably
referring to Gr. P. 457, that this papyrus is a "postage stamp size scrap of
paper (papyrus)"? That would make a mighty big postage stamp, would it
not? Perhaps you were exaggerating a tad to try to make your point? Or is
an utterance still factual even though a bit exaggerated? Where do you draw
the line?
And exactly what is "factual" about the dating of ancient manuscripts?
Could the process not be adequately described as certain scientific
processes such as radiocarbon dating or some form of spectrographic analyses
combined with historical knowledge, expertise in graphology and papyrology,
and some extensive experience handling and dating ancient manuscripts? At
best, the art of dating ancient manuscripts is a series of educated guesses,
at least in my opinion.
Your theory, sir, as you yourself stated, is as follows: You stated " . . .
a few words a book do not make." I then asked the question: "Is it
something like a complete manuscript must be discovered, analyzed, and some
concensus arrived at for a date before it is considered evidence that a
manuscript was extant?" You replied: " ===>YES, of course." You offered
the notion that only a complete manuscript can attest to the existence of
said text at a given date. That is a theory, sir, because it is a
systematic statement of the principles involved in a process, which in this
case is the process of determining the age of certain manuscripts.
You then offered the following as an example of a process resulting from the
application of your theory: "Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper
(papyrus) with a few words on it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a
book by no means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later, was
what that scrap came from." If these words of yours are to apply to P-52
which of course contains verses from the Gospel of John, you seem to be
making presumptions that consciously disregards or is unknowlegable of the
manuscript evidence. Even dating P-52 as late as 150 A.D., which is
reasonable to me as the latest date of this papyrus, then your theory runs
smack into the problem of P-66 (P. Bodmer II) dated to the middle of the
second century, that is 125-175 A.D.,and P-90 (P. Oxy. 3523) dated to
150-200 A.D., all of which contain certain of the same verses from John.
By reasonable dating methods, these papyri could conceivably have been
contemporaneous (although I am inclined to believe they were not.) I invite
you to check the sources and correct me here. But that does seem to negate
your contention concerning a "book, appearing a hundred years later, was
what that scrap came from." Your dating process of John's gospel does not
seem to reflect your notion that you ". . . have no theory. Only discuss
facts." Your "facts" seem a bit flawed concerning your implication that the
next extant manuscript of John is 100 years later than P-52. Do you
disagree?
If such were "discovered" and PROVEN to have come
"from say, 100 or even 90", then THAT would be a
fact.
What quantity and quality of proof must be presented to constitute "proven"
to your satisfaction? As far as I am aware, the past cannot be precisely
recreated, but merely partially reconstructed. Therefore the notion of
historical "fact" is something of a misnomer, and quite likely an oxymoron.
Do you know how to submit the past to a complete scientific and mathematical
process that results in certainty?
But the fact is, there is no such manuscript. -- L.
Yes, that is why I phrased it "when a mostly complete manuscript . . . is
discovered" using the adverb "when" to introduce a subjunctive clause. Was
that not clear to you? Certain legitimate scholars have made rare asses of
themselves pronouncing with finality that this or that event could not
possibly have occurred before a certain date. Various pronouncements
concerning the Gospel of John come to mind. How would a document written in
150 A.D. in Southwestern Turkey and/or its adjacent islands possibly have
been in circulation in central Egypt in at least 3 copies almost
instantaneously?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? DATING THE NT |
08 Nov 2003 06:55:58 PM |
|
|
Didymos wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
Why won't fragments suffice to establish that a manuscript was extant even
though no complete early copy is known to be extant?
===>Of course they suffices to show that SOME manuscript existed.
But it is no evidence that the version found in the existing FULL
manuscripts existed at that time.
Would say, 4 folios of
Homeric Hymns be adequate to establish that they were extant at a certain
date?
===>They would show that SOME hymns existed.
Not that the hymns AS WE KNOW THEM existed.
How about the sole representative of Family D of Plotinus' "Enneads,"
does not this early though badly deteriorated manuscript Marcianus Graecus
209 demonstrate the earliest existence of the "Enneads"?
===>Same comment.
How about 4 folios
of Mark dated to 75?
===>No such thing exists.
Since those folios would probably not contain the
entirety of Mark's gospel, is it your position that a discovery of this
nature would not tend to prove the existence of the gospel of Mark at 75
A.D.?
===>It would not, even if such a thing was found. But there are no such
"folios".
Do you believe it is fair and reasonable to apply the identical criteria to
dating non-Christian manuscripts as the dating of Christian manuscripts?
===>Of course.
Except for the fact that the REAL, FULL manuscripts that DO exist
differ from one another quite significantly, showing the mark of
redactors. This is unlikely to be the case for secular material.
If
so, what are the oldest manuscripts by or about Julius Caesar? Does the
lack of contemporary manuscripts negate Caesar's existence or move him up a
few centuries? What is the oldest extant manuscript of the six primary
sources for Julius Caesar? How about for Augustus? Or perhaps we should
use your system and declare that much like the relationship between Jesus
and Paul, Julius Caesar was just someone Gaius (Caligula) made up a hundred
years later to justify his reign and claim to deity? Shall we do that?
===>Is that the only evidence for Julius Caesar?
If you are reluctant to admit P-52 into evidence, how about P-104?
===>You mean the famous Oxyrhynchus from Egypt?
It is a tiny 7 cm. x 5.2 cm. piece, dated to before 250 C.E.
It shows differences from later, complete manuscripts.
It corresponds to a portion of Matthew 21,
but does not include Matthew 21:44, which is also missing from
some of the later manuscripts, indicating subsequent editing.
How
about P-66?
===>Papyrus Bodmer II (p66) is dated at 200 C.E.
It also shows some differences from other, more complete texts.
Does it contain enough words from the Gospel of John on its 156
pages to be admitted as evidence in your system? Do you dispute that this
manuscript was probably written in the middle of the 2nd century?
===>Yes. It is dated to 200.
How about
P-75? Does it not contain 20 leaves of John's Gospel? Is it not late 2nd
century? And then of course there is P. Oxy. 3523. Or is this too small or
containing insuficient words or too damaged for your consideration?
===>"P45, P46 and P47: The Chester Beatty Papyri
The eponymous Sir Alfred Chester Beatty acquired these papyri in 1930. P45 is
made up of pieces of thirty leaves of a papyrus
codex: two from Matthew, two from John, six from Mark, seven from Luke, and
thirteen from Acts. P46 contains eighty-six
leaves which have Romans, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians,
Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2
Thessalonians. Portions of 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Romans are missing. P47
contains Revelations 9:10-17:2. All three are
dated between 200AD and 250AD although an earlier date has been suggested2.
P66, P72 and P75: The Bodmer Papyri
Martin Bodmer acquired these in 1955. P66 contains John 1:1-6:11, 6:35b-14:26
and fragments of 40 other pages of John
14-21. P72 is the earliest known copy of Jude, and 1 &2 Peter. P75 is a partial
codex containing most of Luke and John. These
fragments are also dated from between 200AD and 250AD.
SEE:
http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers3.html
Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus) with a few words on
it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a book by no
means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later,
was what that scrap came from.
Can you please tell me where I can find a postage stamp that is the size of
P-52 or P-104? How large are these fragments exactly?
===>I am not here to quibble over the sizes of postage stamps.
There is the $8Grizzly stamp issued by Canada that measures 64 x 48.9 mm.
Is that what you believe the term "fragment" exclusively means? But what if
that "postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus)" dated to 125 contains
nearly the same words in the same order in the same "hand" as a mansucript
of say, 25 to 50 years later? And yet another manuscript dated 50-75 years
later?
===>The copyist must have had a long life!
But "nearly the same words" would only support my
point.
What happens to your theory when a mostly complete manuscript of a book
of the New Testament is discovered from say, 100 or even 90?
===>What "theory"?
I have no theory. Only discuss facts.
Only facts, eh? What is factual about your declaration, presumably
referring to Gr. P. 457, that this papyrus is a "postage stamp size scrap of
paper (papyrus)"? That would make a mighty big postage stamp, would it
not? Perhaps you were exaggerating a tad to try to make your point? Or is
an utterance still factual even though a bit exaggerated? Where do you draw
the line?
===>Where do you draw the line about your contention of earlier
dates for the Gospels?
And exactly what is "factual" about the dating of ancient manuscripts?
Could the process not be adequately described as certain scientific
processes such as radiocarbon dating or some form of spectrographic analyses
combined with historical knowledge, expertise in graphology and papyrology,
and some extensive experience handling and dating ancient manuscripts? At
best, the art of dating ancient manuscripts is a series of educated guesses,
at least in my opinion.
Your theory, sir, as you yourself stated, is as follows: You stated " . . .
a few words a book do not make." I then asked the question: "Is it
something like a complete manuscript must be discovered, analyzed, and some
concensus arrived at for a date before it is considered evidence that a
manuscript was extant?" You replied: " ===>YES, of course." You offered
the notion that only a complete manuscript can attest to the existence of
said text at a given date.
===>Of course. You have no idea what the rest of the text
may have been. Only guessing at best.
That is a theory, sir, because it is a
systematic statement of the principles involved in a process, which in this
case is the process of determining the age of certain manuscripts.
===>You cannot determine the age of a non-existent manuscript.
You then offered the following as an example of a process resulting from the
application of your theory: "Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper
(papyrus) with a few words on it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a
book by no means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later, was
what that scrap came from." If these words of yours are to apply to P-52
which of course contains verses from the Gospel of John, you seem to be
making presumptions that consciously disregards or is unknowlegable of the
manuscript evidence.
===>Evidence of WHAT manuscript?
Only of a non-existent manuscript from which that scrap remained.
Even dating P-52 as late as 150 A.D., which is
reasonable to me as the latest date of this papyrus, then your theory runs
smack into the problem of P-66 (P. Bodmer II) dated to the middle of the
second century,
===>WRONG. THIRD century. See above.
that is 125-175 A.D.,and P-90 (P. Oxy. 3523) dated to
150-200 A.D., all of which contain certain of the same verses from John.
===>P90 is just a tattered fragment coming from a papyrus codex.
deemed "too fragmentary for any textual affiliations to be discerned".
By reasonable dating methods, these papyri could conceivably have been
contemporaneous (although I am inclined to believe they were not.) I invite
you to check the sources and correct me here. But that does seem to negate
your contention concerning a "book, appearing a hundred years later, was
what that scrap came from." Your dating process of John's gospel does not
seem to reflect your notion that you ". . . have no theory. Only discuss
facts." Your "facts" seem a bit flawed concerning your implication that the
next extant manuscript of John is 100 years later than P-52. Do you
disagree?
===>Tatian included a version of the Gospel of John in his harmony
(c. 170), and it is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200)
However, the earliest of the extant manuscripts, it
do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century
E.g. the Codex Sinaiticus, dated the 4th Century CE.
Codex Sinaiticus is missing several verses from several books
present in other manuscripts. E.g., it does not contain the so-called
Pricope de adultera (John 8:1-11). But it does contain books later
omitted from the Canon.
There is no basis for the claim that the few fragments
found earlier represent this or any other version of the Johannine
Gospel. We simply don't know what else was contained in those
papyri
If such were "discovered" and PROVEN to have come
"from say, 100 or even 90", then THAT would be a
fact.
What quantity and quality of proof must be presented to constitute "proven"
to your satisfaction?
===>A COMPLETE MANUSCRIPT.
As far as I am aware, the past cannot be precisely
recreated, but merely partially reconstructed. Therefore the notion of
historical "fact" is something of a misnomer, and quite likely an oxymoron.
Do you know how to submit the past to a complete scientific and mathematical
process that results in certainty?
But the fact is, there is no such manuscript. -- L.
Yes, that is why I phrased it "when a mostly complete manuscript . . . is
discovered" using the adverb "when" to introduce a subjunctive clause. Was
that not clear to you? Certain legitimate scholars have made rare asses of
themselves pronouncing with finality that this or that event could not
possibly have occurred before a certain date. Various pronouncements
concerning the Gospel of John come to mind. How would a document written in
150 A.D. in Southwestern Turkey and/or its adjacent islands possibly have
been in circulation in central Egypt in at least 3 copies almost
instantaneously?
===>There is no evidence that the Johannine Gospel, AS WE KNOW IT,
was produced (written, edited, redacted) before that date. The Pericope
mentioned above shows that it did indeed undergo some extensive editing.
And, of course, so did the others.
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? DATING THE NT |
10 Nov 2003 08:12:46 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FAD909E.1CDC6801@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymos wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
Why won't fragments suffice to establish that a manuscript was extant
even
though no complete early copy is known to be extant?
===>Of course they suffices to show that SOME manuscript existed.
But it is no evidence that the version found in the existing FULL
manuscripts existed at that time.
Would you care to get specific here and discuss specific chapters and verses
from specific manuscripts? As opposed to generalizations?
Would say, 4 folios of
Homeric Hymns be adequate to establish that they were extant at a
certain
date?
===>They would show that SOME hymns existed.
Not that the hymns AS WE KNOW THEM existed.
How can you make that claim? Have you compared the texts yourself?
What does your quibble "AS WE KNOW THEM" mean? Are you asking me to produce
a manuscript from antiquity that is identical to Textus Receptus or the 4th
revised edition of the UBS Greek New Testament or some sillyass nonsense
like that?
How about the sole representative of Family D of Plotinus' "Enneads,"
does not this early though badly deteriorated manuscript Marcianus
Graecus
209 demonstrate the earliest existence of the "Enneads"?
===>Same comment.
Same rejoinder: How can you make that claim? Have you compared the texts
yourself?
How about 4 folios
of Mark dated to 75?
===>No such thing exists.
That is a false statement, unless, of course, you claim omniscience and the
ability to accurately predict all future manuscript discoveries. Do you?
To make your sentiment true, you would have to restate it something like
this: no such text is known to be extant. We do not know what is in every
rubbish pit, cave, nook, and cranny in the
Mediterranean basin and the Middle East. Or do you claim such knowledge?
Since those folios would probably not contain the
entirety of Mark's gospel, is it your position that a discovery of this
nature would not tend to prove the existence of the gospel of Mark at 75
A.D.?
===>It would not, even if such a thing was found. But there are no such
"folios".
Again, you cannot know whther or not such folios exist. Exactly what is
your minimum standard of evidence for the existence of a text at a certain
point in time?
Do you believe it is fair and reasonable to apply the identical criteria
to
dating non-Christian manuscripts as the dating of Christian manuscripts?
===>Of course.
Except for the fact that the REAL, FULL manuscripts that DO exist
differ from one another quite significantly, showing the mark of
redactors. This is unlikely to be the case for secular material.
I suspect you have not studied much of the "secular" material. You might
consider taking a look at the sources before you generalize. Can you cite
some specific lines from specific manuscripts, please?
If
so, what are the oldest manuscripts by or about Julius Caesar? Does the
lack of contemporary manuscripts negate Caesar's existence or move him
up a
few centuries? What is the oldest extant manuscript of the six primary
sources for Julius Caesar? How about for Augustus? Or perhaps we
should
use your system and declare that much like the relationship between
Jesus
and Paul, Julius Caesar was just someone Gaius (Caligula) made up a
hundred
years later to justify his reign and claim to deity? Shall we do that?
===>Is that the only evidence for Julius Caesar?
No, there are secondary sources. There are also certain artifacts. Are you
not aware of these?
If you are reluctant to admit P-52 into evidence, how about P-104?
===>You mean the famous Oxyrhynchus from Egypt?
Well, I refer to Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 4404. Oxyrhynchus is a site from which
thousands of manuscripts and fragments were excavated, beginning with
Greenfell and Hunt. I find your use of the singular a bit strange.
It is a tiny 7 cm. x 5.2 cm. piece, dated to before 250 C.E.
What is so tiny about 7 cm. x 5.2 cm? You should be more careful with your
adjectives.
It shows differences from later, complete manuscripts.
So what? The "later, complete manuscripts" have differences among
themselves. What's your point? What specific manuscripts containing what
specific verses indicating what specific differences do you have in mind?
It corresponds to a portion of Matthew 21,
but does not include Matthew 21:44, which is also missing from
some of the later manuscripts, indicating subsequent editing.
Yes, all of the experts I have read point out the same thing. Have you ever
compared this fragment with the same verses in the UBS 4th rev. ed.? Keep
in mind the dates of publication . . . .
How
about P-66?
===>Papyrus Bodmer II (p66) is dated at 200 C.E.
It also shows some differences from other, more complete texts.
Does it contain enough words from the Gospel of John on its 156
pages to be admitted as evidence in your system? Do you dispute that
this
manuscript was probably written in the middle of the 2nd century?
===>Yes. It is dated to 200.
At the extreme end, yes. But the scholarly concensus is the middle of the
second century.
How about
P-75? Does it not contain 20 leaves of John's Gospel? Is it not late
2nd
century? And then of course there is P. Oxy. 3523. Or is this too
small or
containing insuficient words or too damaged for your consideration?
No reply? Why not?
===>"P45, P46 and P47: The Chester Beatty Papyri
Why do you lump these together for dating purposes?
The eponymous Sir Alfred Chester Beatty acquired these papyri in 1930. P45
is
made up of pieces of thirty leaves of a papyrus
codex: two from Matthew, two from John, six from Mark, seven from Luke,
and
thirteen from Acts.
What about the visible pagination numbers for pages 193 and 199? Did not
P-45 originally contain about 224 pages (= 122 leaves)? Ever loked at it or
a facsimile?
P46 contains eighty-six
leaves
But it originally had a few more, didn't it? The number 52 folios comes to
mind. And that would be 104 leaves, wouldn't it?
which have Romans, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians,
Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2
Thessalonians. Portions of 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Romans are missing.
P47
contains Revelations 9:10-17:2. All three are
dated between 200AD and 250AD although an earlier date has been
suggested2.
Have you read the 6 criteria of Young Kyu Kim for dating these papyri and
his date? How about P. H. Comfort's reply? How about Kenyon's article
describing his dating procedure?
Actually, the concensus seems to be moving back in time by at least a
generation or so. The middle of the 2nd century is probably closer to the
average expert concensus, isn't it?
P66, P72 and P75: The Bodmer Papyri
Martin Bodmer acquired these in 1955. P66 contains John 1:1-6:11,
6:35b-14:26
and fragments of 40 other pages of John
14-21. P72 is the earliest known copy of Jude, and 1 &2 Peter. P75 is a
partial
codex containing most of Luke and John. These
fragments are also dated from between 200AD and 250AD.
SEE:
http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers3.html
Thanks, but I have copies of all of these in real books by genuine scholars,
so I will forego references to web sites of unknown provenance that have not
been subjected to peer and/or professional editorial review, if you don't
mind. By the way, I noted that you have used the latest possible dates for
all of these manuscripts. Why? In our correspondance I have striven to
provide the median date even though it would help my argument to fudge
towards the early. And if you want to swap expert opinions and the process
behind the various datings, I am willing. Bet I can find more for mine than
you can for yours. You see, I have actually read the reasons for the late
datings. And I have looked at some of the documents in facsimile. Have you
read the reasoning and examined the documents for the earlier and middle of
the road datings? I will provide some citations if you wish, and some are
even in some peer reviewed journals, which I believe you often insist upon
in other threads, haven't you?
Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus) with a few words
on
it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a book by no
means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later,
was what that scrap came from.
Can you please tell me where I can find a postage stamp that is the size
of
P-52 or P-104? How large are these fragments exactly?
===>I am not here to quibble over the sizes of postage stamps.
There is the $8Grizzly stamp issued by Canada that measures 64 x 48.9 mm.
An exception to prove the rule . . . . But most American, British, and, yes,
even Canadian stamps tend to be a bit smaller, don't they? And both P-52
and P-104 are a bit larger than 64 x 48.9 mm now, aren't they?
Is that what you believe the term "fragment" exclusively means? But
what if
that "postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus)" dated to 125 contains
nearly the same words in the same order in the same "hand" as a
mansucript
of say, 25 to 50 years later? And yet another manuscript dated 50-75
years
later?
===>The copyist must have had a long life!
May I suggest you bone up on the definition of "hand" as it refers to
specific styles of Greek uncials and as the term is used in graphology and
papyrology? There is an enlightening intorduction to the subject in Barrett
and Comfort, "The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts," pp.
24-27, where the adjectives Common, Documentary , Reformed Documentary, and
Professional and their relationship to the Roman Uncial, the Biblical
Uncial, and Decorated Rounded Uncial are succinctly described. Professor
Cavallo in his book "Richerche sulla Maiuscola Biblica," contains a rather
thorough discussion of this topic. In fact, pages 13-43 contain a
discussion of the evolution of the Biblical Hand from the Roman Hand during
the second century. Metzger also describes this in some of his books. If
those are not satisfactory, I possibly can point you to discussions of
writing styles in non-Christian manuscripts.
But "nearly the same words" would only support my
point.
How so?
What happens to your theory when a mostly complete manuscript of a
book
of the New Testament is discovered from say, 100 or even 90?
===>What "theory"?
I have no theory. Only discuss facts.
Only facts, eh? What is factual about your declaration, presumably
referring to Gr. P. 457, that this papyrus is a "postage stamp size
scrap of
paper (papyrus)"? That would make a mighty big postage stamp, would it
not? Perhaps you were exaggerating a tad to try to make your point? Or
is
an utterance still factual even though a bit exaggerated? Where do you
draw
the line?
===>Where do you draw the line about your contention of earlier
dates for the Gospels?
My "contention" is that the earliest known extant manuscripts of the gospels
are the second century manuscripts and fragments such as P-52, P-104,
Egerton, and a few others. (An aside: I do not restrict my sources to the
modern Biblical canon. Obviously, those many gospels and other documents
that were not included in the canon are of no more nor no less historical
value than the texts that did make the canon.) These can be dated to, I
believe, about 110 or so at the earliest, and quite possibly later to say,
125 or 140, and I am hard pressed to deny that 150 is possible, albeit
unlikely. Manuscripts from antiquity can rarely be pinned down to a
specific year or even decade, although there are some texts that claim to
have been written in a specific month and year of the reign of an emperor or
king or other dignitary whose dates have been independently established.
And absent evidence to the contrary, those dates should be accepted.
Quite naturally, I rely upon the work of experts in the field, which I am
assuredly not, because a concensus there indicates the state of expert
opinion while acknowledging the existence of dissenting opinion (although I
have done graduate work in ancient history and classical languages). I
trust the work of those experts whom I cite, because the information they
have published that I have been capable of independently examining by myself
has indicated that they are honest in their conclusions and method and their
method is repeatable with consistent results. Other scholars I do not
trust, although I wish I could. Thierring and Finkelstein come to mind, as
does Eisenman. Their reliance on hair splitting is a bit more than I can
tolerate. For example, I do not believe any extant scientific method can
pin down the date of an artifact over 2,000 years old within 20 or 30 or
even 40 years. The technology is just not that reliable yet. Nor does the
absense of repeatable data prove the absence of phenomena. No one knew what
a quark was 100 years ago. Does that mean they did not exist? Just because
us sillyass humans can't quantify and qualify something is no reason to
presume the thing or process does not exist. It just means we haven't
figured it out yet. Or it may be beyond the scope of scientific method and
observation. Besides, I tend to wholeheartedly agree with certain of the
positions of Finkelstein and Eisenman. And one should always retreat,
re-examine the evidence with great care, and become extremely skeptical when
one finds exactly what one desires to find. Do you disagree?
And exactly what is "factual" about the dating of ancient manuscripts?
Could the process not be adequately described as certain scientific
processes such as radiocarbon dating or some form of spectrographic
analyses
combined with historical knowledge, expertise in graphology and
papyrology,
and some extensive experience handling and dating ancient manuscripts?
At
best, the art of dating ancient manuscripts is a series of edu
ated
guesses,
at least in my opinion.
Your theory, sir, as you yourself stated, is as follows: You stated " .
.. .
a few words a book do not make." I then asked the question: "Is it
something like a complete manuscript must be discovered, analyzed, and
some
concensus arrived at for a date before it is considered evidence that a
manuscript was extant?" You replied: " ===>YES, of course." You
offered
the notion that only a complete manuscript can attest to the existence
of
said text at a given date.
===>Of course. You have no idea what the rest of the text
may have been. Only guessing at best.
Nevertheless, that is a theory. And it is your theory.
And yes, we certainly do have some idea of what the reast of the page
contained. Just as evolutionary processes are not random as alleged by
certain fundamentalists, the words on a papyrus leaf are not random. When
certain words appear in certain order on a medium, and the same words appear
in a certain order on another medium, we call that a copy. And every single
word need not be legible to ascertain with reasonable certainty that one
page is a copy of another. Remember, history and archaeology attempt to
reconstruct the past with the sure and certain knowledge that the best
reconstruction will be woefully incomplete. If you seek certainty, may I
recommend certain branches of mathematics that deal with relatively few
variables or theology?
There is wild guessing and there is educated guessing. Isn't everything
outside of physics and chemistry and mathematics guessing to some extent?
Come to think of it, the physical sciences and mathematics often involve
educated guessing. And everything about antiquity is guessing. Virtually
nothing is solid outside of a very general framework. And Christian history
is just as solid as other than Christian history (Secular is inappropriate
to describe anything in the ancient world as everything was related to the
deities and religious dogma and practice.) And to deny that these two
histories support each other is foolish, in my opinion. The nearly
indisputable fact is that there is a pile of manuscripts and fragments
dealing with events of ancient Christian history that are closer to the
events than nearly any evidence for other than Christian ancient history.
That is a theory, sir, because it is a
systematic statement of the principles involved in a process, which in
this
case is the process of determining the age of certain manuscripts.
===>You cannot determine the age of a non-existent manuscript.
But your words are still a theory by definition. Besides, do you doubt that
Livy's histories contained far more books in the first century than are now
extant? Do you doubt that Euripides and Aeschylus wrote dramas whose title
and plot are known but have not survived as complete manuscripts? Can you
name 5,000 members of Vespasian's legions who destroyed Jerusalem? Can you
name just the centurians, must less the private soldiers killed by the
"Germans" in the Tutewald Forest? Can you name 646 of the thousands of
"Germans" who destroyed these Roman Legions? Does your inability to do so
negate their existence and acts? Do you doubt that thousands of the letters
by Erasmus that no longer survive ever existed? Do you doubt that millions
of people lived and died in antiquity that left no historical trace? Does
the fact that they left no record negate their existence?
And yes, we can indeeed "determine the age of a non-existent manuscript."
Historians and archaeologists do it and have done it for some years. For
example, the lost volumes of Livy did not exist before he reached majority
and they certainly existed at some point in time and space before his death.
I just determined the age of several non-existent manuscripts. I can name
certain of these manuscripts. I can even tell you in a general outline what
events they describe. I invite you to falsify my theory. Can you?
You then offered the following as an example of a process resulting from
the
application of your theory: "Finding a postage stamp size scrap of
paper
(papyrus) with a few words on it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence
in a
book by no means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later,
was
what that scrap came from." If these words of yours are to apply to
P-52
which of course contains verses from the Gospel of John, you seem to be
making presumptions that consciously disregards or is unknowlegable of
the
manuscript evidence.
===>Evidence of WHAT manuscript?
Only of a non-existent manuscript from which that scrap remained.
Read your words again. Then kindly explain how a scrap remains from a
non-existent manuscript, please? Does non-existent mean that document does
not exist now or never did exist? Do you not see the inherant contradiction
in your expressed opinion?
Even dating P-52 as late as 150 A.D., which is
reasonable to me as the latest date of this papyrus, then your theory
runs
smack into the problem of P-66 (P. Bodmer II) dated to the middle of the
second century,
===>WRONG. THIRD century. See above.
Pfui. Wrong? According to whom? Maybe off by a few years, but you are
not in a position to state whether the date is "WRONG." And no, web sites
of unknown provenance by authors whose vita is not public are not admissable
as evidence. Let's stick to what has been peer reviewed and kicked about
among the specialists who really do know what they are about, shall we?
But what is the concensus for a mid 2nd century dating of P-66? Victor
Martin, Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Geneva, dated
it to c. 200 in 1956. Herbert Hunger, director of papyrological collections
at the National Library, Vienna, dated it earlier, to the middle of the 2nd
century or even earlier, and dated it to the same age as P-52 and Egerton.
Professors G. Cavallo and R. Seider also date P-66 to the middle of the
second century. E. G. Turner dates this to 200-250 based upon the broad
delta, broad theta, narrow alpha, and a few other characteristics. Philipp
Comfort disagreed with Turner and in a detailed study points to the examples
of these same styles of writing in known second century manuscripts such as
P. London 110 and P. Berol. 9782, as well as P. Oxy 220, P. Oxy. 841, P.
Oxy. 1434, P. Oxy. 216, and others. I have dug up certain facsimiles of
some of these, and I tend towards the earlier dating based upon my
examination of what portions of the evidnece I have examined.
Kindly produce your reasons for believing this manuscript is not 2nd
century. Or are we to take your word for it? If so, kindly post your vita
so your readers can judge whether you have sufficient education, training,
and experience to render an expert opinion. Thanks.
that is 125-175 A.D.,and P-90 (P. Oxy. 3523) dated to
150-200 A.D., all of which contain certain of the same verses from
John.
===>P90 is just a tattered fragment coming from a papyrus codex.
deemed "too fragmentary for any textual affiliations to be discerned".
Wherever did you read that? I have photographs of P-90 in front of me. I
can read the uncials. But my opinion doesn't count. T. C. Skeat, Philipp
Comfort, Kurt Aland, H. I. Bell and some others do not seem to have had the
problem your source apparently does. Why do you think that is the case?
You wouldn't be fudging the evidence a bit to try to make a point, would
you?
By reasonable dating methods, these papyri could conceivably have been
contemporaneous (although I am inclined to believe they were not.) I
invite
you to check the sources and correct me here. But that does seem to
negate
your contention concerning a "book, appearing a hundred years later, was
what that scrap came from." Your dating process of John's gospel does
not
seem to reflect your notion that you ". . . have no theory. Only discuss
facts." Your "facts" seem a bit flawed concerning your implication that
the
next extant manuscript of John is 100 years later than P-52. Do you
disagree?
===>Tatian included a version of the Gospel of John in his harmony
(c. 170), and it is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200)
Yes, so what?
However, the earliest of the extant manuscripts, it
do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century
E.g. the Codex Sinaiticus, dated the 4th Century CE.
What utter nonsense. What verses are not in the 2nd and 3rd century papyri
that are in manuscipt Aleph?
Codex Sinaiticus is missing several verses from several books
present in other manuscripts. E.g., it does not contain the so-called
Pricope de adultera (John 8:1-11).
No kidding? Neither do the earlier manuscripts of John's gospel. What is
your point? Do you know of any manuscript older than 1700 years that is not
damaged to some extent? Please, do enlighten us by providing catalogue data
for such a manuscript.
But it does contain books later
omitted from the Canon.
"Omitted"? Or do you mean never included in the canon? When was the Shepard
of Hermas ever included in the New Testament canon?
There is no basis for the claim that the few fragments
found earlier represent this or any other version of the Johannine
Gospel. We simply don't know what else was contained in those
papyri
Of course there is. I have never read anyone who claims P-52, P-66, P-75,
P-90 and the other early papyrus writings commonly attributed to John are
not parts of the Gospel of John. Except you and Mr Kuchinsky. Forgive me
if I assert that you are not exactly in the most reputable scholarly company
there. I think I will stick with the real experts and genuine scholars in
the field. Unless of course you can present some overwhelming evidence that
these fragments and manuscripts do not represent the Gospel of John. You
have offered nothing so far except some personal opinion. Can you now
produce some manuscript evidence to support your rather odd assertion?
If such were "discovered" and PROVEN to have come
"from say, 100 or even 90", then THAT would be a
fact.
What quantity and quality of proof must be presented to constitute
"proven"
to your satisfaction?
===>A COMPLETE MANUSCRIPT.
How can you know that P-66 did not represent a complete manuscript when it
was written?
Aren't you the one who brought up the pericope of the
adultress? Does your rather odd insistence upon "A COMPLETE MANUSCRIPT"
mean that all the late editions appearing in Receptus must be present in
every manuscript from antiquity before they are proven to be manuscripts of
gospels? Isn't that a bit kooky?
By the way, you insistence upon "A COMPLETE MANUSCRIPT" eliminates Livy,
Euripides, Homer, Aristophanes, Euclid, Cicero, and most other sources for
ancient history. Machiavelli could be upset with this new knowledge that
Libertarius has, with one fell swoop, eliminated his source for the
"Discourses" from the Western canon. Imagine his chagrin . . . all that
work in vain. This notion of yours that only complete manuscripts are
admissable is absurd in the extreme. Every scrap, every fragment, every
shard, from antiquity is priceless. And your weird and (thus far)
indefensible notion that only a "complete manuscript" and by extension the
complete temple, the complete urn, the complete clay tablet, the complete
weapon, are admissable as historical and archaeological sources just so you
can buttress whatever theory you are trying to prove is unworthy of serious
contemplation.
As far as I am aware, the past cannot be precisely
recreated, but merely partially reconstructed. Therefore the notion of
historical "fact" is something of a misnomer, and quite likely an
oxymoron.
Do you know how to submit the past to a complete scientific and
mathematical
process that results in certainty?
What? No reply? Why not?
But the fact is, there is no such manuscript. -- L.
Yes, that is why I phrased it "when a mostly complete manuscript . . .
is
discovered" using the adverb "when" to introduce a subjunctive clause.
Was
that not clear to you? Certain legitimate scholars have made rare asses
of
themselves pronouncing with finality that this or that event could not
possibly have occurred before a certain date. Various pronouncements
concerning the Gospel of John come to mind. How would a document
written in
150 A.D. in Southwestern Turkey and/or its adjacent islands possibly
have
been in circulation in central Egypt in at least 3 copies almost
instantaneously?
===>There is no evidence that the Johannine Gospel, AS WE KNOW IT,
was produced (written, edited, redacted) before that date. The Pericope
mentioned above shows that it did indeed undergo some extensive editing.
Can you cite a single scholar in the field of New Testament Studies or
ancient history who maintains that P-52, P-66, P-75, and P-90 are not the
Gospel of John? I eagerly anticipate your reply. Quite frankly, although I
have read various arguments concerning the dating and provenance, no one I
have read ever disputed or even hinted these were not the Gospel of John.
But then I have not read everything . . . . But please, do not cite vanity
published cranks and crackpots of Mr Kuchinsky's ilk. Try to find real
professionals and scholars.
Again, forgive me if you can find it in yourself, or not, as you choose, but
I think I will stick with the genuine scholars like Aland, Comfort, Metzger,
Turner, Crossan, Cavallo, and so many others who actually have the
professional qualifications to make such determinations. If, however, you
are willing to make public your vita which demonstrates you have the
requisite education, training, and experience, a record of peer reviewed
publications, and institutional appointments, and then present a detailed
case for the rather deviant position you and Mr Kuchinsky take on the
papyrus evidence and early uncials, I will be happy to reconsider my
position.
And, of course, so did the others.
Of course they did. Who ever stated they did not?
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? DATING THE NT |
14 Nov 2003 09:35:09 AM |
|
|
"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<yAXrb.6799$nz.46@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FAD909E.1CDC6801@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
...
Other scholars I do not trust, although I wish I could.
Thiering and Finkelstein come to mind, as
does Eisenman. Their reliance on hair splitting is a bit more than I can
tolerate. For example, I do not believe any extant scientific method can
pin down the date of an artifact over 2,000 years old within 20 or 30 or
even 40 years. The technology is just not that reliable yet.
...
possibly have occurred before a certain date. Various pronouncements
concerning the Gospel of John come to mind. How would a document
written in 150 A.D. in Southwestern Turkey and/or its adjacent islands
possibly have been in circulation in central Egypt in at least 3 copies
almost instantaneously?
===>There is no evidence that the Johannine Gospel, AS WE KNOW IT,
was produced (written, edited, redacted) before that date. The Pericope
mentioned above shows that it did indeed undergo some extensive editing.
...
THE RADICAL DATING OF THE GOSPELS EXTREMELY EARLY ---
The gospels redated via the Scrolls
Date: 23 Feb 2001
From: Dr. Barbara Thiering
-----------------------------------------------------
David Christainsen wrote 2/23/2001 on DSS Forum ---
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk//kking/ntdocs4.html
So, John dates first among the 4 Gospels written before Fall of Jerusalem
etc.
If we accept NT converges datewise with DSS, identification of major figures
follow logically.
While we are waiting for Bob's ink to be scientifically dated, does my
suggestion have plausibility?
---
The link with Kevin King's website was interesting, in that he accepts the
pre-70 dating of the gospels while
upholding a fairly orthodox Christian view about Jesus. As he said, the
redating of the gospels was first argued
by J.A.T. Robinson in the 60's. Robinson's insight was that the very late
date
came from a desire to justify the
incredible content of the gospels, chiefly the miracles and the apparent
contradictions. Time was needed for the
growth of legend. The dating simply ignored much of the historical evidence
because of this theological motive.
Now there is a huge quantity of new information, which Christian biblical
scholars are only slowly digesting,
much gored by papal bulls. The Scrolls are capable of making an even bigger
difference to the NT than the 19th
century discoveries of Creation and Flood stories made to the OT.
The Scrolls' information leading to a redating of John (for a start)
includes
the fact of the zealot activities of the
Qumran community in its 1st cent CE phase, taken with the many evidences of
an
institutional connection of
Qumran with the early Christians. Further, the enemies of the Teacher are
said
to be Samaritans in 1QpMic. From
this and a great deal more (Clementina, Acts 8, Eusebius, the stone found in
the Tiber etc etc), the pesher
technique identifies Simon Magus the Samaritan as a leading figure in the
history. He was an associate of Jesus,
who is called a Samaritan in Jn 8:48, and he was the zealot leader, being
also
Simon the Zealot of the disciples (Lk
6:15), also Simon the leper of Bethany, and Lazarus of Bethany (numerous
pseudonyms used for political cover,
as was also the case in the Scrolls' treatment of their opponent). Simon was
the leader of the
'Seekers-after-Smooth-Things', Diaspora Essenes, and was the main person
crucified for zealotry by Pilate, 'the
Young Lion of Wrath' (pNah). Jesus was only a subordinate who was crucified
as
an act of treachery instigated
by the zealots themselves.
Since Lazarus is treated sympathetically in John's gospel, (his 'raising
from
the dead' in Jn 11 being the lifting of
his ban of excommunication), this means that this gospel was written before
Peter and Paul denounced him (Acts
8, also Acts 13: 8-12 re Bar-Jesus). Acts 8 may be dated, internally from
the
pesher, in 37-39 CE. A split occurred
in 44 CE, in the tolerant reign of Claudius, when pro-Roman Christians
separated with a new name, and the zealots
remained in the Damascus party that produced CD.
The composition of John's gospel may, on these grounds, be placed very early
indeed, before 37 CE, only a few
years after the crucifixion. Its dualistic philosophy of light-darkness,
once
taken to be a sign of very late
Hellenistic influence, is now known to be thoroughly at home in the Scrolls,
as Albright saw at once.
Other gospels follow. The pesher indicates that Mark was written in c. 45
CE,
Luke at about the same time, and
Matthew completed (after an earlier version, the Hebrew Logia) by 49 CE. For
further on this, see my 'Jesus of the
Apocalypse' (1995) and 'The Book that Jesus Wrote - John's Gospel' (1998).
Questions, comments and criticisms that show an understanding of what is
being
argued would be welcomed.
B.T.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? DATING THE NT |
09 Nov 2003 01:15:18 PM |
|
|
In soc.history.ancient Libertarius <Libertarius@nothing_but_the_truth.net> wrote:
...
: ===>Tatian included a version of the Gospel of John in his harmony
: (c. 170),
Yes, Libertarius, that's the accepted view among the scholars. Although
there's still some considerable doubt that Tatian was really the author of
the Diatessaron...
: and it is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200)
: However, the earliest of the extant manuscripts, it
: do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century
: E.g. the Codex Sinaiticus, dated the 4th Century CE.
: Codex Sinaiticus is missing several verses from several books
: present in other manuscripts. E.g., it does not contain the so-called
: Pricope de adultera (John 8:1-11). But it does contain books later
: omitted from the Canon.
: There is no basis for the claim that the few fragments
: found earlier represent this or any other version of the Johannine
: Gospel. We simply don't know what else was contained in those
: papyri
I agree with you for the most part.
In general, these few fragmentary early papyri that we do possess are not
old enough to make any difference (i.e. they are not earlier than 200 CE).
Thus, their contents, whatever it might be, becomes quite irrelevant.
All the best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Trotter960" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
05 Nov 2003 09:54:52 PM |
|
|
From: Libertarius
===>YES, of course.
Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus) with a few words on
it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a book by no
means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later,
was what that scrap came from.
The case for P52 is a little stronger than that.
===>What "theory"?
I have no theory. Only discuss facts.
You have a theory. You have a theory that a book is to be dated by the first
complete
manuscript of the same.
Let's test this theory. Outside of the NT what author from the Classical world
is best attested? What is the manuscript evidence for this author? What
manuscripts survive and what dates are assigned to them.
But the fact is, there is no such manuscript
I'm reminded of the state of manuscript evidence for the OT prior to the
discovery of the DSS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
06 Nov 2003 01:13:04 PM |
|
|
Trotter960 wrote:
From: Libertarius
===>YES, of course.
Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus) with a few words on
it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a book by no
means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later,
was what that scrap came from.
The case for P52 is a little stronger than that.
===>P52 (Rylands Greek Papyrus 457)
is a tiny (3.5 inches long, 2.5 inches wide)
papyrus fragment containing a few letters on each side
from what appears to have been seven lines of text,
with a similarity to a page in the Johannine Gospel.
It is typically dated to between 125-150 C.E.
I.e. SECOND CENTURY!
===>What "theory"?
I have no theory. Only discuss facts.
You have a theory. You have a theory that a book is to be dated by the first
complete manuscript of the same.
===>Why would THAT be a "theory"???
A "fragment" (such as P52) may be identified with its possible date.
That does not mean the MANUSCRIPT, AS WE SEE IT
existed at that time. E.g. it may be a heavily EDITED version
of whatever that "fragment" may have come from.
And THAT is NOT a "theory".
Let's test this theory. Outside of the NT what author from the Classical world
is best attested? What is the manuscript evidence for this author? What
manuscripts survive and what dates are assigned to them.
===>The only OBJECTIVE, EMPIRICAL evidence for the MANUSCRIPT
is the manuscript itself.
But the fact is, there is no such manuscript
I'm reminded of the state of manuscript evidence for the OT prior to the
discovery of the DSS.
===>Good point! Thanks for the support.
Prior to the DSS there was nothing that old in evidence, and the DSS
material shows that the manuscripts they represent were NOT THE SAME
as what we have known from the existing LXX or Masoretic copies. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
06 Nov 2003 01:49:06 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FA99AF3.711D7D68@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Didymos wrote:
===>Right. Possibly even later than that. -- L.
How then can you explain the existence of P-52, P-104, and Egerton? Do
not
all of these come periously close to rendering your 100 A.D. date
untenable?
===>No.
Even if the dates were earlier,
a few words a book do not make. -- L.
And why is that the case?
How do you interpret "about" when you refer to a date of a manuscript? I
take it as plus or minus 25 years.
Is it something like a complete manuscript must be discovered, analyzed, and
some concensus arrived at for a date before it is considered evidence that a
manuscript was extant?
===>YES, of course.
I don't see how this can be right. Surely it is only necessary to
find a portion of papyrus with enough lettering on it to disambiguate
the text in question?
Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus) with a few words on
it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a book by no
means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later,
was what that scrap came from.
Should that be the case, of course this would be correct. Such papyri
are rather difficult to classify. However, for literary texts, it is
less of a problem than perhaps some might think. If it is ambiguous,
it is ambiguous, of course.
But the papyri under discussion do not fit this scenario, being rather
larger than a postage stamp and with rather more than a few words on
them.
Some people imagine that a manuscript witness can be disposed of by
positing an otherwise unknown text which just happens to contain the
same words as in the find which it is desired to debunk. But surely
we must not invent texts in this manner? If more than one text
containing the words in the set order and spacing is extant, of
course, then the Ms. witnesses to the existence of an Ms. of one or
other, and more data would be required to classify the fragment.
But do bear in mind that, as a rule, texts exist centuries before the
earliest extant piece of manuscript witness. After all, we mainly
rely on whatever happened to be in the rubbish dump at Oxyrhynchus,
and that cannot be a representative sample.
What happens to your theory when a mostly complete manuscript of a book of
the New Testament is discovered from say, 100 or even 90?
===>What "theory"?
I have no theory. Only discuss facts.
Um. I've not seen the earlier posts, but I hope an appeal to absence
of evidence is not involved here?
If such were "discovered" and PROVEN to have come
"from say, 100 or even 90", then THAT would be a
fact.
But the fact is, there is no such manuscript. -- L.
Well, to be precise, there is no such manuscript *known to us* (yet).
But that it existed at one time is more or less inevitable from the
papyri; and as Didymos rightly suggests, it may be just sitting in a
jar awaiting discovery. And why not?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
06 Nov 2003 02:23:17 PM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FA99AF3.711D7D68@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Didymos wrote:
===>Right. Possibly even later than that. -- L.
How then can you explain the existence of P-52, P-104, and Egerton? Do
not
all of these come periously close to rendering your 100 A.D. date
untenable?
===>No.
Even if the dates were earlier,
a few words a book do not make. -- L.
And why is that the case?
How do you interpret "about" when you refer to a date of a manuscript? I
take it as plus or minus 25 years.
Is it something like a complete manuscript must be discovered, analyzed, and
some concensus arrived at for a date before it is considered evidence that a
manuscript was extant?
===>YES, of course.
I don't see how this can be right. Surely it is only necessary to
find a portion of papyrus with enough lettering on it to disambiguate
the text in question?
Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus) with a few words on
it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a book by no
means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later,
was what that scrap came from.
Should that be the case, of course this would be correct. Such papyri
are rather difficult to classify. However, for literary texts, it is
less of a problem than perhaps some might think. If it is ambiguous,
it is ambiguous, of course.
But the papyri under discussion do not fit this scenario, being rather
larger than a postage stamp and with rather more than a few words on
them.
===>Do you have any references or are you just fantasizing?
Some people imagine that a manuscript witness can be disposed of by
positing an otherwise unknown text which just happens to contain the
same words as in the find which it is desired to debunk. But surely
we must not invent texts in this manner? If more than one text
containing the words in the set order and spacing is extant, of
course, then the Ms. witnesses to the existence of an Ms. of one or
other, and more data would be required to classify the fragment.
But do bear in mind that, as a rule, texts exist centuries before the
earliest extant piece of manuscript witness. After all, we mainly
rely on whatever happened to be in the rubbish dump at Oxyrhynchus,
and that cannot be a representative sample.
What happens to your theory when a mostly complete manuscript of a book of
the New Testament is discovered from say, 100 or even 90?
===>What "theory"?
I have no theory. Only discuss facts.
Um. I've not seen the earlier posts, but I hope an appeal to absence
of evidence is not involved here?
If such were "discovered" and PROVEN to have come
"from say, 100 or even 90", then THAT would be a
fact.
But the fact is, there is no such manuscript. -- L.
Well, to be precise, there is no such manuscript *known to us* (yet).
But that it existed at one time is more or less inevitable from the
papyri; and as Didymos rightly suggests, it may be just sitting in a
jar awaiting discovery. And why not?
===>Are you not just falling back on the old principle of
"anything is possible"???"
Even P52 appears to be a lot younger than the original estimate.
"a recent re-dating of P52 by Schmidt...now dates it to ca 170 CE. (A.
Schmidt, ZWEI ANMERKUNGEN ZU P.RYL.III 457, APF 35, 1989).
A reference to this is also found
in U. Schnelle, THE HISTORY AND THEOLOGY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT WRITINGS,
Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1998 / SCM, London, 1998, p. 477, n. 119.
According to Schnelle, A. Schmidt "dates p52 in the period around 170 CE (+/- 25) on the basis of a
comparison with P Chester Beatty X." (SEE: http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm).
-- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
07 Nov 2003 10:37:19 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAAADB5.E7A1E622@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Finding a postage stamp size scrap of paper (papyrus) with a few words on
it that MIGHT correspond to some sentence in a book by no
means proves that that book, appearing a hundred years later,
was what that scrap came from.
Should that be the case, of course this would be correct. Such papyri
are rather difficult to classify. However, for literary texts, it is
less of a problem than perhaps some might think. If it is ambiguous,
it is ambiguous, of course.
But the papyri under discussion do not fit this scenario, being rather
larger than a postage stamp and with rather more than a few words on
them.
===>Do you have any references or are you just fantasizing?
I don't see any references here to Bettany Hughes on horseback: what
makes you think this rather dull query is anyone's fantasy?
I'm not sure what sort of references you want, but these are all
published documents. Look in Metzger on the Text of the NT and follow
the refs. For P52, I have a copy of Colin Roberts original
publication. I do hope the purpose of this jibe is not the standard
approach of the dumb-atheist, to adopt a position at a whim and then
demand footnoted refutation?
Does not the fact that these papyri are attributed without debate to
the said documents indicate to us a lack of ambiguity? Not sure I
understand you, I'm afraid.
If you wish to assert that these papyri can belong to more than one
extant document, well, I look forward to the demonstration. But the
handbooks say they are gospel fragments. I didn't classify them; but
I am happy to believe so until someone shows me different.
===>Are you not just falling back on the old principle of
"anything is possible"???"
No, just rather aware of the number of papyri dug up over the last
century.
Even P52 appears to be a lot younger than the original estimate.
"a recent re-dating of P52 by Schmidt...now dates it to ca 170 CE. (A.
Schmidt, ZWEI ANMERKUNGEN ZU P.RYL.III 457, APF 35, 1989).
A reference to this is also found
in U. Schnelle, THE HISTORY AND THEOLOGY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT WRITINGS,
Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1998 / SCM, London, 1998, p. 477, n. 119.
According to Schnelle, A. Schmidt "dates p52 in the period around 170 CE (+/-
25) on the basis of a comparison with P Chester Beatty X." (SEE:
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm).
Thank you for giving the source of your information -- most helpful.
This is the site of Yuri Kuchinsky, I see. Did you see the next bit:
"Also, a recent article by C. Tuckett in THE NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES,
"P52 and Nomina Sacra" (October 2001) can be noted here in this
discussion. In this article, Tuckett tried to find the Nomina Sacra in
our MS Rylands, by doing a detailed study of line-length and
word-spacing, but was unsuccessful. So he concluded that "Jesus" was
written in full in the two instances where one might have expected to
find Nomina Sacra in MS Rylands. But it is generally believed that
there was a regular practice of abbreviating Nomina Sacra in early
Christianity. So this also seems at odds with a very early dating of
p52."
No-one supposes that the nomina sacra were used when the gospels were
composed. As such, this is actually evidence *for* early dating, not
against it. Surely? But this is by the by.
I cannot evaluate the claim of Schmidt (who is he?), in the absence of
the paper and those referring to it. However I'm really rather
doubtful that this can be more than a kite-flying exercise. We all
know what the consensus is, and that it originates from the technical
judgement of the paleographers, not the NT scholars. You might do us
a service by obtaining Schmidt, and shoving it online where we can see
it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
07 Nov 2003 11:39:58 AM |
|
|
(Roger Pearse) wrote:
Thank you for giving the source of your information -- most
helpful. This is the site of Yuri Kuchinsky, I see. Did you see
the next bit:
"Also, a recent article by C. Tuckett in THE NEW TESTAMENT
STUDIES, "P52 and Nomina Sacra" (October 2001) can be noted here
in this discussion. In this article, Tuckett tried to find the
Nomina Sacra in our MS Rylands, by doing a detailed study of
line-length and word-spacing, but was unsuccessful. So he
concluded that "Jesus" was written in full in the two instances
where one might have expected to find Nomina Sacra in MS Rylands.
But it is generally believed that there was a regular practice of
abbreviating Nomina Sacra in early Christianity. So this also
seems at odds with a very early dating of p52."
No-one supposes that the nomina sacra were used when the gospels
were composed.
Why not, Roger?
As such, this is actually evidence *for* early dating, not against
it. Surely?
Not quite...
It is generally believed that the earliest gospel MSS used the Nomina
Sacra abbreviations. So I don't think that the absence of these
abbreviations can be used as an argument that a given MS is very
early.
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
08 Nov 2003 10:53:43 AM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<ONQqb.1285$iN5.398906419@news.nnrp.ca>...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote:
Thank you for giving the source of your information -- most
helpful. This is the site of Yuri Kuchinsky, I see. Did you see
the next bit:
"Also, a recent article by C. Tuckett in THE NEW TESTAMENT
STUDIES, "P52 and Nomina Sacra" (October 2001) can be noted here
in this discussion. In this article, Tuckett tried to find the
Nomina Sacra in our MS Rylands, by doing a detailed study of
line-length and word-spacing, but was unsuccessful. So he
concluded that "Jesus" was written in full in the two instances
where one might have expected to find Nomina Sacra in MS Rylands.
But it is generally believed that there was a regular practice of
abbreviating Nomina Sacra in early Christianity. So this also
seems at odds with a very early dating of p52."
No-one supposes that the nomina sacra were used when the gospels
were composed.
Why not, Roger?
Because I don't see why abbreviations for things will come into use
until they've been written a lot. The development of shorthand does
not precede the creation of writing. And so on. I would ask how a
nominum sacrum for 'Jesus' can predate the production of the texts
that talk about him? The first texts must spell it out in full. Only
later, as scribes adopt the same approach for Jesus as for other OT
figures, will corresponding abbreviations develop. Or am I missing
something obvious here?
As such, this is actually evidence *for* early dating, not against
it. Surely?
Not quite...
It is generally believed that the earliest gospel MSS used the Nomina
Sacra abbreviations.
Are you sure? (You could be right, but I never heard such a thing --
where does this come from, if you don't mind?) But if so, I would
ask, tho, on what evidence can this statement be based?
So I don't think that the absence of these
abbreviations can be used as an argument that a given MS is very
early.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
09 Nov 2003 01:48:43 PM |
|
|
(Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0311080853.49b66ec2@posting.google.com>...
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<ONQqb.1285$iN5.398906419@news.nnrp.ca>...
(Roger Pearse) wrote:
Thank you for giving the source of your information -- most
helpful. This is the site of Yuri Kuchinsky, I see. Did you see
the next bit:
"Also, a recent article by C. Tuckett in THE NEW TESTAMENT
STUDIES, "P52 and Nomina Sacra" (October 2001) can be noted here
in this discussion. In this article, Tuckett tried to find the
Nomina Sacra in our MS Rylands, by doing a detailed study of
line-length and word-spacing, but was unsuccessful. So he
concluded that "Jesus" was written in full in the two instances
where one might have expected to find Nomina Sacra in MS Rylands.
But it is generally believed that there was a regular practice of
abbreviating Nomina Sacra in early Christianity. So this also
seems at odds with a very early dating of p52."
No-one supposes that the nomina sacra were used when the gospels
were composed.
Why not, Roger?
Because I don't see why abbreviations for things will come into use
until they've been written a lot. The development of shorthand does
not precede the creation of writing. And so on. I would ask how a
nominum sacrum for 'Jesus' can predate the production of the texts
that talk about him? The first texts must spell it out in full. Only
later, as scribes adopt the same approach for Jesus as for other OT
figures, will corresponding abbreviations develop. Or am I missing
something obvious here?
As such, this is actually evidence *for* early dating, not against
it. Surely?
Not quite...
It is generally believed that the earliest gospel MSS used the Nomina
Sacra abbreviations.
Are you sure? (You could be right, but I never heard such a thing --
where does this come from, if you don't mind?) But if so, I would
ask, tho, on what evidence can this statement be based?
So I don't think that the absence of these
abbreviations can be used as an argument that a given MS is very
early.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Hi, Roger,
According to Waltz,
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/NominaSacra.html
"The use of nomina sacra became standard at a very early date."
But now you want to argue that it is the _absence_ of the Nomina Sacra
that should be seen as evidence that a MS is very early?
If so, this seems like a new theory that you have now pioneered. But I
think I'd need to see some more evidence before I agree with this.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
09 Nov 2003 04:26:23 PM |
|
|
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311091148.77a0e740@posting.google.com...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message
news:<3a88eeea.0311080853.49b66ec2@posting.google.com>...
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:<ONQqb.1285$iN5.398906419@news.nnrp.ca>...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote:
Thank you for giving the source of your information -- most
helpful. This is the site of Yuri Kuchinsky, I see. Did you see
the next bit:
"Also, a recent article by C. Tuckett in THE NEW TESTAMENT
STUDIES, "P52 and Nomina Sacra" (October 2001) can be noted here
in this discussion. In this article, Tuckett tried to find the
Nomina Sacra in our MS Rylands, by doing a detailed study of
line-length and word-spacing, but was unsuccessful. So he
concluded that "Jesus" was written in full in the two instances
where one might have expected to find Nomina Sacra in MS Rylands.
But it is generally believed that there was a regular practice of
abbreviating Nomina Sacra in early Christianity. So this also
seems at odds with a very early dating of p52."
No-one supposes that the nomina sacra were used when the gospels
were composed.
Why not, Roger?
Because I don't see why abbreviations for things will come into use
until they've been written a lot. The development of shorthand does
not precede the creation of writing. And so on. I would ask how a
nominum sacrum for 'Jesus' can predate the production of the texts
that talk about him? The first texts must spell it out in full. Only
later, as scribes adopt the same approach for Jesus as for other OT
figures, will corresponding abbreviations develop. Or am I missing
something obvious here?
As such, this is actually evidence *for* early dating, not against
it. Surely?
Not quite...
It is generally believed that the earliest gospel MSS used the Nomina
Sacra abbreviations.
Are you sure? (You could be right, but I never heard such a thing --
where does this come from, if you don't mind?) But if so, I would
ask, tho, on what evidence can this statement be based?
So I don't think that the absence of these
abbreviations can be used as an argument that a given MS is very
early.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Hi, Roger,
According to Waltz,
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/NominaSacra.html
"The use of nomina sacra became standard at a very early date."
Did anyone else read the footnote at the end of the sentence cited by Mr
Kuchinsky? If so, one cannot help but note that by "very early date" this
author aparently means the 4th century, as the footnote refers to
manuscripts B, D, Z, S, codex 700 and the Bodleian Genesis, as these are the
manuscripts the author uses to illustrate this point.
But now you want to argue that it is the _absence_ of the Nomina Sacra
that should be seen as evidence that a MS is very early?
If so, this seems like a new theory that you have now pioneered. But I
think I'd need to see some more evidence before I agree with this.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in n | | | | | | | |
