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

Re: P64 and Thiede

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jun 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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 2 of 9 , Jun 9, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 9 , Jun 10, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 9 , Jun 10, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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.