Subject: New dates for papyri

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:10:06 -0400 (EDT)

Hi tc-listers:
I just gleaned the following from the B-Hebrew list and thought you guys
might be interested in case some may not have seen it before.
James D. Price

==============================================

From: Fred Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:51:22 -0500
Subject: Re: BHGr Q? Dawson 1994 on textlinguistics

friends

Bob Morse sent me a message which concerns dating of Greek papari by
documents that were found at Qumran.  Because of the obvious implication
related to dating N.T. documents I thought it worth sharing. I think the
Hebrew community at Qumran may make the Greek documents relevant to any
group I hope you think so too.

from 
        [email-masked]

Dear Fred, As a result of browsing and an inter-library "loan", I
recently obtained a copy of the Tyndale Bulletin (May '95). It contains 
articles by Carsten Thiede and Philip Comfort. These men are
papyrologists of the first water. Between the two of them, I learned
that ten NT papyri have been redated and all are earlier than was
thought. What led to these new assessments was the discovery of first
century Greek fragments from Dead Sea caves and from Herculaneum, both
areas having precise latest dates (A.D 68 and 79). The letter style
matches that of the Egyptian papyri. P4, until recently dated 3rd cent.,
is now of about 100 (Luke). P32 (Titus) has moved from c.200 to c.175;
P45 (Chester Beatty for the Gospel and Acts) has moved from 3rd cent. to
c.150; P46 (Chest. Beat. Ro, 1-2 Co, Gal, Eph, Php, Col, 1 Th, Heb) has
moved from c.200 to A.D. 85!!!! P52 (Rylands, Jn 18) has moved from
c.125 to later first century--around 81-100. P64,67 (Magdalen &
Barcelona fragments of Matt) has moved from c.200 to later first cent,
(c.68-100). P66 (Bodmer II of Jn) has moved from c200 to c.125; P77
(Matt.) from 2nd-3rd cent. to c.150; P87 (Philemon) from 3rd cent to
c.125; P90 (John) from "2nd cent." to c.150. Now get this: the former
datings were influenced by the late-dating of NT books by destructive
higher criticism (DHC). The new, accurate dates simply pitch DHC into
the garbage can, where it has always belonged. I can give you precise
descriptions of the Dead Sea documents later, if you need them. Thiede
is a German with an English wife. He made the authorities at Oxford
(Magdalen College)very unhappy because they had been sitting on the
evidence for a century and didn't know what they had. Thiede speaks of
Jesus resurrection in A.D. 30 as factual. How refreshing! Comfort is
connected with Wheaton. Two other papyrologists involved in the new
dating are: Herbert Hunger and Y.K. Kim. Well, so much for tonight. God
bless and we'll be in touch again, God willing.

***************************
Fred P Miller
For Bible Study Majoring in Isaiah
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller
*******************************

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:28:04 -0700

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, [email-masked] quoted:

>higher criticism (DHC).

Let me start by freely admitting that I am NOT a paleographer. So
I don't know what goes on in paleographers' heads. But I just can't
buy this. Dating a papyrus to an exact year? Come on! Did any of
us change the way we wrote between last year and this? For that
matter, do all of us (obviously contemoraries) write in the same
style? Certainly not.

Now I'm not saying that the dates of some of the papyri should not
be moved down. As I said, I don't know enough to argue. But I don't
think we can take this without a grain of salt.

This is particularly true where Philip Comfort is involved. His
worship of old documents makes Jim West look restrained. If previous
scholars were influenced by higher criticism, he Comfort is at least
as likely to be influenced by a desire for old manuscripts.

The curmudgeon in me strikes again. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)