Facebook - New Testament Scholarship Worldwide
https://www.facebook.com/groups/151...id=886627998023354&offset=0&total_comments=12
Steven Avery
.
Luke, I agree. Brent Nongbri has been pioneering in showing that papyri dating, when only by handwriting, is:
.
a) often too early
b) invariably too limited a date range.
.
And that early dating has a cascading effect, as the various papyri are often compared one to another.
.
Papers have discussed P52 and P66 with P75 planned.
.
Now there are times where there are external evidences. This papyrus is dated by the fact that such-and-such is mentioned in a specified way in the same papyri stash. (Such a reference will give a terminus post quem, and possibly a terminus ad quem.) In such cases it is possible for the dating to be fairly secure.
.
Apparently the 1st century dating mentioned in the ambush by Daniel Wallace was done by one palaeographic whiz. In such a case one is the loneliest number. And the first big question would be .. was that handwriting only? Or was there some external aspect to the date?
=======================
}
Steven Avery
.
When I tried to get up to speed on this Galatians 2 fragment I came across these interesting comments from Christian Askeland, which relates to my comment above.
.
Please go to the page for the techie aspect.
.
=======================
.
Galatian Papyrus on Sale
Oct 30, 2012
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/.../brice...
.
Christian Askeland
"You (Brice) have clearly offered the 4th-5th century as a "likely" date ... Your comparison with P66 75 is indicative of the core problem here. (1) We do not know the dates for P66 75 with any certainty. According to James Robinson, they were buried in the early 7th century -- which does not bode well for a 3rd century date ....
.
My mention of the 6th-8th centuries as a probability (within a larger range) in my previous comment reflects the mass of Coptic documentary documents extant from that period."
.
=======================
.
SA
If I remember right from Brent Nongbri, this is really the terminus ante quem of P66 and P75, about 600 AD. Even if it is thought by a palaeographic expert that they are likely Ante-Nicene, the range of dates has to be many centuries, since they lack any external (to script and materials and text) dating component. And the fact of 7th century burial or discard emphasized by
Christian must be seen as significant.
.
From the view of NT Scholarship (Worldwide)
... There is a **** big difference **** between a papyrus being somewhere between 200-625 AD and being called 225 AD or placed in the late second and early third centuires.
.
========================
.
Let's remember that the ultra-dubious insistence on early dating was made a major part of the theoretical argumentation. And not just for the vein of "look how early we have so much papyri" that has been used by Daniel Wallace, James White and others.
.
More significantly, we have had textline argumentation from gentlemen like Gordon Fee and Daniel Wallace. And it has been a case of error upon error.
.
First a papyrus like P75 is locked into an ultra-early date. How convenient. And this is followed up by a logically deficient theory discussing the supposed "common ancestor" or pointing to a text "ten generations" back (Daniel Wallace).
.
From this compounding of error, Vaticanus (which does have a decent affinity with P75, about 90% agreement on variants) is placed as close to the autographs. This has been a rather amazing type of back-door methodology used to rehabilitate the largely discarded theories of Hort. More precisely, the textual conclusions, rather than the discarded theory. The history of the Fee and Wallace textual shell game on this is available.
.
Your thoughts?
.
If I am missing anything here, I really would like to unmiss.
.
========================
.
Steven Avery
.
