Peter Kirby wrote:That's an opinion, but it's your opinion, not Nongbri's in that article.Leucius Charinus wrote:Specifically which article did you mention? I thought you re-cited Nongbri's article. Sure Nongbri discusses the canonical papyri fragments, and not the non canonical fragments. I understand that.Peter Kirby wrote:The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses any of the papyri that I mentioned in that article.
From reading Nongbri's article I get the impression he is saying that the current way of citing palaeographical dates (eg: mid 2nd century to late 2nd century) is not realistic because the error range stated is too small. I read him saying that any of these early (canonical) papyri could also be dated to the 4th century because there exists securely dated comparanda that is dated to the 4th century. The summary position (as I read Nongbri) is that the upper bound of palaeographical estimates, as a result of this comparanda, should be inclusive of the 4th century.There may be a purpose in citing Nongbri, but it was cited inaccurately above. You may have meant something different than what you said, of course, but that's also inaccuracy.
Yes, he is the only one I know so far who has made such a dramatic variation in the error bounds of palaeographical dating. However I did cite another article above, Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography in which the authors also argue for a relaxation of the focus of "early" date ranges.
So I really don't understand your criticism, unless it is the fact that I am applying Nongbri's 4th century upper bound palaeographical estimates (for canonical papyri) to the non canonical papyri. But I do not see this application as irrational, since the point is being made on the actual estimation of palaeographical dates (with upper and lower bounds) - and should apply to both canonical and non canonical papyri across the board.
LC
OK I accept that is the case. Rightly or wrongly I have generalised what Nongbri writes about P.66.
OK. I now understand that the papyri you mentioned are these:Peter Kirby wrote:Rephrase: The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses, in that article, any of the papyri that I mentioned.Leucius Charinus wrote:Specifically which article did you mention?Peter Kirby wrote:The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses any of the papyri that I mentioned in that article.
- 188 P.Oxy. 3.405 II/III Oxyrhynchus Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.9, 2-3
213 P.Oxy. 41.2949 II/III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Peter
214 P.Oxy. 4.654 III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Thomas, Prologue and logoi 1-7
215 P.Oxy. 50.3525 III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Mary
217 P.Oxy. 4.655 beg. III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Thomas, logoi 24, 36-39
224 P.Ryl. 3.463 beg. III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Mary
225 P.Oxy. 1.1 early III Oxyrhynchus Gospel of Thomas, logoi 26-33, 77a
226 P.Schøyen 1.21 III unknown Acts of Paul and Thecla
I have a list of these (with the mainstream estimated chronology) here: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... papyri.htm
I am no palaeographer, but I have read books and articles on the subject which are collated here: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_071.htm In a number of these articles the authors express caution and have provided a number of specific and surprising counter-examples against treating palaeographical estimates as "certain" for the papyri fragments. Eric Turner admits that a "subjective factor" will always be present in such estimates. So we need error bounds that are as realistic as possible.At this point I'd advise that if you really want to be taken seriously, you should become first hand familiar with the techniques of paleography. All of this is too fundamental to your whole endeavor for you to be citing someone here or there (who are exceptions in the world of paleography) for your conclusions, especially when you are extrapolating even more (inexpertly) from there.
I have acknowledged that the early papyri (except the Irenaeus one) are estimated to be from the 3rd century. But I have argued that it is not unreasonable that all palaeographical estimates should be expressed as a date range, with a lower and upper bound, and that when an appropriate upper bound is evaluated then it will include the 4th century. This is obviously a defensive argument against the falsification of the hypothesis of the OP in the citing of palaeographical dates associated with these papyri. But I don't see it (100 years difference) as either unreasonable or ad hoc considering the issues involved in this form of dating.
However I am quite open to any criticism on this issue because, as you rightly say, I am no expert.
LC