Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

P64 and Thiede

Expand Messages
  • malcolm robertson
    Dear Andrew, Carsten Peter Thiede (deceased) has taken quite a lot of unscholarly flack from various quarters for his palaeographically based thesis that p64
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 7, 2005
      Dear Andrew,
       
      Carsten Peter Thiede (deceased) has taken quite a lot of unscholarly flack from various quarters for his palaeographically based thesis that p64 should be dated from the 1st century.  In like fashion in fact, Jose O' Callaghan (deceased) has been dismissed by some for his identification of 7Q5 as a fragment of Mk 6:52-53.  Palaeographically viewed, however, Colin H. Roberts - without identifying the fragment - had already dated this fragment between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50 prior to O'Callaghan's identification. 
       
      There is a fairly good general discussion of identification, dating, etc of mss here online.
       
       
      Re: 7Q5
       
      Daniel B. Wallace has an online publication re O'Callaghan and his identification of 7Q5.
       
      Wieland Wilker has an essay by E.A. Muro who identifies this fragment with Enoch
       
       
      Compare also this review of Stefan Enste's NON IDENTIFICATION by Daniel Harrington
       
       
      Re: p64 et al
       
      Thiede, Carsten Peter, Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory–Aland P64). A Reappraisal, in
      Zeitschrift fuer Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd 105, (1995).
       
       
      also
       
      Thiede, Carsten Peter  & D'Ancona, Matthew, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996.
       
      Peter M. Head (Cambridge) in a well ordered and documented paper argues for a consensus date of the later 2nd cent. c. A.D. 200.

      Peter M. Head, 'The Date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64): A Response to C.P. Thiede', Tyndale Bulletin 46.2(1995)251-285. Date of P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64: On-line version

      Philip Comfort wants to be more *sane* than Thiede and draw the date back to c. A.D. 100.

      Comfort, Philip W., “Exploring the Common Identification of Three New Testament Manuscripts: (p4, p64, and p67),” Tyndale Bulletin 46:1 (1995), 43-57.

      Comfort, Philip W., Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 58-59.

       
      Because of the disparity of dating and the extremely complex exactitude that is required there are few people with enough exposure to a variety of turn of the century mss (fragments) to make an intelligent and judicious determination.  Peter M. Head is perhaps the best versed on this list in this field within this time frame.
       
      I, personally, feel Thiede's thesis could have been argued more keenly - thus filling in some of  what I consider his "hops, skips, and jumps."  The date of p64 will not *make or break* the content of one's biblical faith, however the content itself of this fragment might.
       
      For exposure to first hand documents see Wieland's excellent collection and links.
       
       
      Cordially in Christ,
       
      Malcolm
       
      _________________________________________________________
       
       
      On another forum I've come across a claim about P64, the Magdalen papyrus of Matthew which Thiede controversially dated to before 100 CE 
       
      The claim is that there is another papyrus recording a business
      transaction dated in the 12th year of Nero which paleographically
      strongly resembles P64 and hence might support Thiede's early
      dating.
       
      Does anyone have any information about this ?
       
      Andrew Criddle



      Discover Yahoo!
      Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
    • Peter Head
      ... P. Oxy 246 a dated papyrus resembling it almost like a twin , (acc. Jesus Papyrus pp 111-112). Complete nonsense of course. Peter ... Peter M. Head, PhD
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 8, 2005
        At 08:11 PM 6/6/05, you wrote:
        >On another forum I've come across a claim about P64, the Magdalen
        >papyrus of Matthew which Thiede controversially dated to before 100
        >CE
        >
        >The claim is that there is another papyrus recording a business
        >transaction dated in the 12th year of Nero which paleographically
        >strongly resembles P64 and hence might support Thiede's early
        >dating.
        >
        >Does anyone have any information about this ?
        >

        P. Oxy 246

        'a dated papyrus resembling it almost like a twin', (acc. Jesus Papyrus pp
        111-112).

        Complete nonsense of course.

        Peter


        >Andrew Criddle
        >
        >
        >----------
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > *
        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/
        >
        > *
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > *
        > <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > *
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

        Peter M. Head, PhD
        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
        Tyndale House
        36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
        566607
        Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
        http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
      • Peter Head
        At 07:07 PM 6/7/05, Malcolm wrote: Because of the disparity of dating and the extremely complex exactitude that is required there are few people with enough
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 8, 2005
          At 07:07 PM 6/7/05, Malcolm wrote:

          Because of the disparity of dating and the extremely complex exactitude that is required there are few people with enough exposure to a variety of turn of the century mss (fragments) to make an intelligent and judicious determination. 

          I disagree with this comment. Although it suited him to raise the complexity of palaeographical analysis (especially for scholars without their own 'epifluorescent confocal laser scanning device'), Thiede's claims are not really that complicated: "P64 exhibits particular stylistic similarities with a range of manuscripts that can be securely dated in the first century." The alleged similarities of hand can be examined in the photos provided in my article to which reference was already made (link below). This will demonstrate how unfounded Thiede's claims were. [And in fact there have been four or five unanswered critical scholarly responses to Thiede's article].

          Peter M. Head, 'The Date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64): A Response to C.P. Thiede', Tyndale Bulletin 46.2(1995)251-285. Date of P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64: On-line version

          Cheers

          Peter



          Peter M. Head, PhD
          Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
          Tyndale House
          36 Selwyn Gardens                                             Phone: (UK) 01223 566607
          Cambridge, CB3 9BA                                            Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
          http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm

        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... A photograph of P. Oxy. 246 is between pp. 172-173 of Deissmann s LIGHT FROM THE ANCIENT EAST and I ve uploaded a detail of it to:
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 8, 2005
            Peter Head <pmh15@...> wrote:
            >P. Oxy 246
            >
            >'a dated papyrus resembling it almost like a twin', (acc. Jesus Papyrus pp
            >111-112).
            >
            >Complete nonsense of course.

            A photograph of P. Oxy. 246 is between pp. 172-173 of
            Deissmann's LIGHT FROM THE ANCIENT EAST and I've
            uploaded a detail of it to:

            http://www.hypotyposeis.org/images/poxy-246-detail.jpg

            Stephen Carlson


            --
            Stephen C. Carlson,
            mailto:scarlson@...
            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
          • Wieland Willker
            ... I don t see the similarities. The writing looks untrained. BTW, what I noticed a while ago in comparing p64 and p67 is that in p67 the Kappa always has a
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 8, 2005
              > A photograph of P. Oxy. 246
              > http://www.hypotyposeis.org/images/poxy-246-detail.jpg

              I don't see the similarities. The writing looks untrained.

              BTW, what I noticed a while ago in comparing p64 and p67 is that in p67 the Kappa always has a characteristic turn at the top right end of the upward stroke. This cannot be seen in P64.
              How certain can we be that this is the same MS?

              PS: I am looking for good images of P64.

              Best wishes
              Wieland
              <><
              ------------------------------------------------
              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              Textcritical commentary:
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
            • malcolm robertson
              Dear Peter, One of the major problems that I have with the critiques offered to Thiede s thesis are what I see as hidden agendas or ulterior motives in
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 9, 2005
                Dear Peter,
                 
                One of the major problems that I have with the critiques offered to Thiede's thesis are what I see as hidden agendas or ulterior motives in challenging Thiede's dating.  Thiede himself was not free of this issue either.  I think the script similarity issue - although admittedly limited by Theide himself by this marshalling of a limited number of existing textual evidence - was inadequate and yet again is crucial to any dating of mss. 
                 
                For example, if one is going to compare script against script in order to eliminate the disparity of a 200 year appraised dating spread, I would suggest that Rahlf's P 967 be used as the touchstone against which comparisions are lodged.  If the provenance issue is going to be brought in then the individual idiosyncrasies and their variations by the same (or different) individual(s) should be admitted and weighted.  You know we are dealing with human variables and probabilities.
                 
                The issues of a) codicology (scroll or codex; one or two columns; variation in line length); b) theological issues (eyewitness testimony) based solely on palaeographic evidence and not on historical or internal content grounds; c) text-type bias motivations (omission of words, letters); d) limited examination of presently existing textual evidence; or e) the unknown variable of the appearance and use of nomina sacra can all or in part skew the assessment. These issues are not proven axioms for assessment but simply unknown (held in tension) variables in the equation.
                 
                In making these and previous remarks I am not denying or supporting Thiede's thesis.  I am simply stating what I see as unscholarly proceedings by and against him.  
                 
                Cordially in Christ,
                 
                Malcolm
                 
                 
                 



                Do you Yahoo!?
                Make Yahoo! your home page
              • Peter Head
                Dear Malcolm, I don t understand all your message. And I should be marking exams and other things. So apologies for brevity. Firstly we should admit that most
                Message 7 of 9 , Jun 10, 2005
                  Dear Malcolm,

                  I don't understand all your message. And I should be marking exams and
                  other things. So apologies for brevity. Firstly we should admit that most
                  of the various (not necessarily hidden) agendas were introduced (as was his
                  normal custom) by Thiede himself.
                  Secondly I am still waiting to see an example of any such ulterior motives
                  or other 'unscholarly proceedings' in the scholarly responses to Thiede's
                  claim about the date of P64. I know I had to work hard to keep the focus
                  where it should be - on the manuscript hand and comparable examples. Have
                  you read my response to Thiede? I'd love to know where the problems are.
                  Once I took the trouble to find the manuscripts (and the extra trouble to
                  get permissions to publish them) I am afraid that the argument crumbled
                  into nothingness.

                  Three responses to consider (there are others, but these focus on the
                  script and datable comparable examples):
                  Wachtel in ZPE 107 (1995) 73-80.
                  Puech in RB 102 (1995) 570-584 (really 577-584)
                  Head in Tyndale Bulletin 46 (1995) 253-285.

                  The claim was made. It has been refuted. Time to move on.


                  Cheers

                  Peter

                  At 03:26 PM 6/9/05, Malcolm wrote:
                  >One of the major problems that I have with the critiques offered to
                  >Thiede's thesis are what I see as hidden agendas or ulterior motives in
                  >challenging Thiede's dating. Thiede himself was not free of this issue
                  >either. I think the script similarity issue - although admittedly limited
                  >by Theide himself by this marshalling of a limited number of existing
                  >textual evidence - was inadequate and yet again is crucial to any dating
                  >of mss.
                  >
                  >For example, if one is going to compare script against script in order to
                  >eliminate the disparity of a 200 year appraised dating spread, I would
                  >suggest that Rahlf's P 967 be used as the touchstone against which
                  >comparisions are lodged. If the provenance issue is going to be brought
                  >in then the individual idiosyncrasies and their variations by the same (or
                  >different) individual(s) should be admitted and weighted. You know we are
                  >dealing with human variables and probabilities.
                  >
                  >The issues of a) codicology (scroll or codex; one or two columns;
                  >variation in line length); b) theological issues (eyewitness testimony)
                  >based solely on palaeographic evidence and not on historical or internal
                  >content grounds; c) text-type bias motivations (omission of words,
                  >letters); d) limited examination of presently existing textual evidence;
                  >or e) the unknown variable of the appearance and use of nomina sacra can
                  >all or in part skew the assessment. These issues are not proven axioms for
                  >assessment but simply unknown (held in tension) variables in the equation.
                  >
                  >In making these and previous remarks I am not denying or supporting
                  >Thiede's thesis. I am simply stating what I see as unscholarly
                  >proceedings by and against him.
                  >
                  >Cordially in Christ,
                  >
                  >Malcolm
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Do you Yahoo!?
                  ><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/my/navbar/sethp/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>Make
                  >Yahoo! your home page
                  >
                  >----------
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > *
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/
                  >
                  > *
                  > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > *
                  > <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > *
                  > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                  > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                  Peter M. Head, PhD
                  Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                  Tyndale House
                  36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                  566607
                  Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                  http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                • malcolm robertson
                  Dear Peter, Yes I have read/studied your essay(s) and those of others - less Wachtel and Puech. I guess my issues are more with the others than you. However,
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jun 10, 2005
                    Dear Peter,
                     
                    Yes I have read/studied your essay(s) and those of others - less Wachtel and Puech.  I guess my issues are more with the others than you. However, these issues of mine are by no means personal, but more directed toward a sounder and more uniform methodological approach to this science (or at least its application).  The disparity in assigning dates to these compositions (in this case P64) and the wide margin of error (plus or minus a given number of years) as well as the use of non established unknown variables as axiomatic givens makes me shudder.
                     
                    I too do not have time at present to write a paper nor enter into a long drawn out discussion on this topic.  Perhaps later - if God will.
                     
                    Cordially in Christ,
                     
                    Malcolm 
                     
                    ______________________________
                     
                    Dear Malcolm,

                    I don't understand all your message. And I should be marking exams and
                    other things. So apologies for brevity. Firstly we should admit that most
                    of the various (not necessarily hidden) agendas were introduced (as was his
                    normal custom) by Thiede himself.
                    Secondly I am still waiting to see an example of any such ulterior motives
                    or other 'unscholarly proceedings' in the scholarly responses to Thiede's
                    claim about the date of P64. I know I had to work hard to keep the focus
                    where it should be - on the manuscript hand and comparable examples. Have
                    you read my response to Thiede? I'd love to know where the problems are.
                    Once I took the trouble to find the manuscripts (and the extra trouble to
                    get permissions to publish them) I am afraid that the argument crumbled
                    into nothingness.

                    Three responses to consider (there are others, but these focus on the
                    script and datable comparable examples):
                    Wachtel in ZPE 107 (1995) 73-80.
                    Puech in RB 102 (1995) 570-584 (really 577-584)
                    Head in Tyndale Bulletin 46 (1995) 253-285.

                    The claim was made. It has been refuted. Time to move on.


                    Cheers

                    Peter

                    At 03:26 PM 6/9/05, Malcolm wrote:
                    >One of the major problems that I have with the critiques offered to
                    >Thiede's thesis are what I see as hidden agendas or ulterior motives in
                    >challenging Thiede's dating. Thiede himself was not free of this issue
                    >either. I think the script similarity issue - although admittedly limited
                    >by Theide himself by this marshalling of a limited number of existing
                    >textual evidence - was inadequate and yet again is crucial to any dating
                    >of mss.
                    >
                    >For example, if one is going to compare script against script in order to
                    >eliminate the disparity of a 200 year appraised dating spread, I would
                    >suggest that Rahlf's P 967 be used as the touchstone
                    against which
                    >comparisions are lodged. If the provenance issue is going to be brought
                    >in then the individual idiosyncrasies and their variations by the same (or
                    >different) individual(s) should be admitted and weighted. You know we are
                    >dealing with human variables and probabilities.
                    >
                    >The issues of a) codicology (scroll or codex; one or two columns;
                    >variation in line length); b) theological issues (eyewitness testimony)
                    >based solely on palaeographic evidence and not on historical or internal
                    >content grounds; c) text-type bias motivations (omission of words,
                    >letters); d) limited examination of presently existing textual evidence;
                    >or e) the unknown variable of the appearance and use of nomina sacra can
                    >all or in part skew the assessment. These issues are not proven axioms for
                    >assessment but simply unknown (held in tension) variables in the equation.
                    >
                    >In making these and previous
                    remarks I am not denying or supporting
                    >Thiede's thesis. I am simply stating what I see as unscholarly
                    >proceedings by and against him.
                    >
                    >Cordially in Christ,
                    >
                    >Malcolm
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >Do you Yahoo!?
                    ><
                    http://us.rd.yahoo.com/my/navbar/sethp/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>Make
                    >Yahoo! your home page
                    >
                    >----------
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > *
                    >
                    <
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/t\
                    extualcriticism/

                    >
                    > *
                    > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > *
                    >
                    <mailto:
                    textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textual\
                    criticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > *
                    > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                    > <
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                    Peter M. Head, PhD
                    Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                    Tyndale House
                    36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                    566607
                    Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                    http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm



                    Discover Yahoo!
                    Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.