Page 7 of 26

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 8:30 pm
by Peter Kirby
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Apr 16, 2023 4:58 pm
And once again you show that you don't know how historical reasoning and evidence work.
I reject that proposition. I have pointed out the elements of historical methodology as used by classical source criticism and biblical source criticism and how these differ in some of their approaches to historical reasoning. You have not responded to this at all. Do you have a problem with it?
I could follow up with some questions about it.

And I'll keep the polemics to a minimum (although you still haven't responded to several questions).
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:18 amThe ad quem dates of composition are usually fixed by the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:18 amIf there are no other datable works with historical integrity then the ad quem looks to the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy. Or something that is very close to this.
You've mentioned only two methods of fixing an ad quem date of the composition of a text:

(1) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work
(2) the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy

Are you familiar with any other methods?

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:36 am
by Leucius Charinus
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 16, 2023 8:30 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:18 amThe ad quem dates of composition are usually fixed by the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:18 amIf there are no other datable works with historical integrity then the ad quem looks to the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy. Or something that is very close to this.
You've mentioned only two methods of fixing an ad quem date of the composition of a text:

(1) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work
(2) the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy

Are you familiar with any other methods?
For ad quem dates:

(3) stratiographic (via archeology) eg DP24

(4) re-use:
a) recto: such as a palimpsest (which may have date evidence),
b) verso: such as a receipt with date, or some historical allusion

(5) Paleography (handwriting), decorations, marginal notes, illustrations may provide qualified indications


General dating techniques (a quo and ad quem) may provide may provide further indications


(6) Ink analysis

(7) C14

There are probably others.

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:22 am
by Peter Kirby
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:36 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Apr 16, 2023 8:30 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:18 amThe ad quem dates of composition are usually fixed by the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:18 amIf there are no other datable works with historical integrity then the ad quem looks to the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy. Or something that is very close to this.
You've mentioned only two methods of fixing an ad quem date of the composition of a text:

(1) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work
(2) the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy

Are you familiar with any other methods?
For ad quem dates:

(3) stratiographic (via archeology) eg DP24

(4) re-use:
a) recto: such as a palimpsest (which may have date evidence),
b) verso: such as a receipt with date, or some historical allusion

(5) Paleography (handwriting), decorations, marginal notes, illustrations may provide qualified indications


General dating techniques (a quo and ad quem) may provide may provide further indications


(6) Ink analysis

(7) C14

There are probably others.
So that leaves you with:

(1) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work

(2) the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy, where the manuscript is dated by:
(2) (a) stratiographic analysis (via archeology)
(2) (b) re-use of manuscript on recto or verso, when the re-use can be dated
(2) (c) paleography
(2) (d) ink analysis
(2) (e) C14

Are you familiar with any other methods for fixing a terminus ad quem date for the original composition of a text (which is not the same thing as the terminus ad quem for the dating of an individual manuscript)?

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:47 pm
by Leucius Charinus
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:22 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:36 am There are probably others.
So that leaves you with:

(1) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work

(2) the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy, where the manuscript is dated by:
(2) (a) stratiographic analysis (via archeology)
(2) (b) re-use of manuscript on recto or verso, when the re-use can be dated
(2) (c) paleography
(2) (d) ink analysis
(2) (e) C14

Are you familiar with any other methods for fixing a terminus ad quem date for the original composition of a text (which is not the same thing as the terminus ad quem for the dating of an individual manuscript)?
There are probably other methods. Feel free to elaborate.

ETA1: e.g. prosopography;
ETA2: one might also include textual and redaction criticism

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2023 5:19 pm
by Leucius Charinus
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 12:08 pm my questions.

No, but you continue to prove my point that you're interested only in quote mining paleographers in your attempt to dismiss paleography.

Again I am not dismissing paeography. It has its uses and its limitations - especially when used in isolation (i.e. without any other dating methods). My comments and quotes were cautionary. Questioning the confidence we can place in paleographical date ranges is not a dismissal.

So can others now quote the conclusions of Nongbri and Turner to you? You've already dodged this question once.

I am aware of their conclusions regarding the mainstream paradigm. Nongbri is more guarded than Turner. Other paleographers want to date much earlier. It's a bit like a pendulum that swings back and forth over the generations since G&H.


I don't have a problem with Nongbri's work as a paleographer. Do you?

No. I've met him. Anyone who kept a surfboard in his office is OK in my book.

And how are you feeling today about the three problems that I pointed out? Are you intent on denying their validity?

My answer to your 3rd question involving a presentation of an overall map of all the evidence arranged by classes may also answer your first two. If it doesn't let me know.

And what is your intention regarding updating your essay to reflect your own concessions regarding the Dura fragment?

The essay was a response to Carrier's article. Carrier likens a 4th century theory to Qanon. The essay points out a number of assumptions (which may not be true) upon which Carrier relies. And a number of errors. I have no intention to update it.

Also, you highlighted a sentence saying "Out of hundreds of instances of supposed 'early' Christian literature it is the only instance for which the dating method is not paleography in isolation." I asked simply, "why do you think that is?" Maybe you could try to answer the question.

IDK the answer to that question. Do you?

Who Faked Egyptian papyrus P.Bas. 2.43 ?

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2023 5:42 pm
by billd89
The Arrianus Letter to Paulus is dated c.230 AD, 100 years before Constantine. It suggests a thriving and probably well-established community of Christians/Chrestians: is it something else?

Egyptian papyrus P.Bas. 2.43 - date and origin by means of extensive prosopographical research

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2023 6:10 pm
by Leucius Charinus
billd89 wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 5:42 pm The Arrianus Letter to Paulus is dated c.230 AD, 100 years before Constantine. It suggests a thriving and probably well-established community of Christians/Chrestians: is it something else?
The fragment does not contain a date. It appears to be dated by means of "prosopographical research". How much confidence can be placed in the 3rd century chronological estimate via prosopography?


Determining date and origin

By means of extensive prosopographical research, Huebner was able to trace the papyrus to the 230s AD. This makes the letter at least 40-50 years older than all other known Christian documentary letters worldwide. It also provides important details on the social background of this early Christian family: Arrianus and his brother Paulus were young, educated sons of the local elite, landowners and public officials.

The location of the papyrus was also successfully reconstructed: It comes from the village of Theadelphia in central Egypt and belongs to the famous Heroninus archive, the largest papyrus archive from Roman times.

The papyrus letter is at the heart of Huebner’s new monograph Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament. Her book is aimed at a broad audience and shows how the papyri of Greco-Roman Egypt can help to illustrate the social, political and economic life of the early Christians.
https://www.unibas.ch/en/News-Events/Ne ... Basel.html


Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2023 6:32 pm
by Leucius Charinus
lclapshaw wrote: Tue Apr 11, 2023 10:41 pm A more rigorous dating method than paleography would be helpful IMO.
Yes it would be helpful to silence or assuage the skepticism over the earliness of Christian origins. I consider C14 dating to have more "scientific rigor" but so far the C14 dates indicate probability curves hovering over the 4th century.

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2023 7:16 pm
by Secret Alias
Pete acts like he's willing to "discuss" his ideas. But there's absolutely no chance of him admitting he's wrong.

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:49 pm
by Peter Kirby
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:47 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:22 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:36 am There are probably others.
So that leaves you with:

(1) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work

(2) the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy, where the manuscript is dated by:
(2) (a) stratiographic analysis (via archeology)
(2) (b) re-use of manuscript on recto or verso, when the re-use can be dated
(2) (c) paleography
(2) (d) ink analysis
(2) (e) C14

Are you familiar with any other methods for fixing a terminus ad quem date for the original composition of a text (which is not the same thing as the terminus ad quem for the dating of an individual manuscript)?
There are probably other methods. Feel free to elaborate.

ETA1: e.g. prosopography;
ETA2: one might also include textual and redaction criticism
Here for example is a discussion of an important first century author:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/di ... ioscorides
A letter attached to Dioscorides’s work as a dedicatory preface reveals almost all that is known of his life. The letter states that Dioscorides lived a soldier’ life; this enabled him to learn at first hand the identity, preparation, and uses of medicines. Galen names his birthplace,1 and some manuscript notations add the name Pedanius. Some authorities believe that Dioscorides studied at Tarsus and Alexandria and later attached himself to the Roman army as a military physician. These suppositions are based on his statement that he led a “soldier-like life” (σισδα γάρήμīν στρα⊤ιω⊤кòν ⊤óν βιоν);, his remark that he has “lived” (σενδιáγоν⊤εѕ) with Areius of Tarsus, and the likelihood that his travels would have taken him to Alexandria, where he could have had access to the library. Dioscorides has been dated both by the mention of his contemporaries and by Galen’s use of Dioscorides’ work. Erotian (fl. caa.d. 60), a commentator of the Hippocratic works who lived during the Neronian age, mentions Dioscorides (assuming that the name is not an interpolation).2 In his letter to Areius, Dioscorides mentions Laecanius Bassus, presumed to be C. Laecanius Bassus, consul in A.D.64, who is spoken of by Pliny and Tacitus.3 Quintus Sextius Niger (fl 25 b.c.) is the latest writer whom Dioscorides cites. Pliny the Elder did not know Dioscorides’ works directly, but certain similarities between Pliny’s and Dioscorides’ texts are explained by their having employed the same written source, Sextius Niger.

Several arguments are made to narrow down the date:

(i) “lived” (σενδιáγоν⊤εѕ) with Areius of Tarsus [first century medical teacher]
(ii) a possibly-interpolated reference from Erotian (fl. caa.d. 60)
(iii) a reference in the text to C. Laecanius Bassus, consul in A.D.64

Corresponding to:

(i) dating based on the life of the author (the info about Arius establishing his life) - this is a new one

(ii) this looks like your (1)

(iii) references in the text to contemporary people and circumstances - this is a new one

There are more things I could write about later.