The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

The main seat of the Jacobites of the Persian empire was the considerable town of Tagrit, on the middle course of the Tigris ; but nowhere in Persia were they nearly so numerous as the Nestorians. The Jacobite catholicus bore also the title of maphrian (mafriyana), i.e. " the fructifier," who spreads the Church by instituting priests and bishops. After the Arabs had become masters of all the countries in which Monophysite Syrians were found, the separation of the provinces of the Jacobite “patriarch of Antioch” and that of the maphrián was, strictly speaking, no longer necessary; but the force of custom, and still more the interest which many of the clergy had in not allowing so influential and remunerative a post as that of maphrián to go down, were enough to maintain the old arrangement. But many disputes arose as to the boundaries of the two provinces, and the whole relation of maphrián to patriarch; on the whole, however, it was agreed that the patriarch’s indeed was the higher rank, but that the maphrián in his sphere was quite independent of him; and further, that for the election of a patriarch the co-operation of the maphrián was indispensable (unless that post also was vacant), and that a maphrián could only be nominated with the sanction of the patriarch. In the choice of a maphrián the wishes of the Eastern dioceses (_i.e._ of the bishops and heads of monasteries there) had to be respected; yet, as a rule, he was taken from the West. Now Barhebræus had already been designated as maphrián by the late patriarch, and, moreover, he seems to have been the ruling spirit in the electoral synod; accordingly he was chosen “maphrián of Tagrít and the East” on Sunday, 20th January 1264.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:02 am
MrMacSon wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am The final bishop on the list suggests the approximate dates of these two somebodies, and the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment from book 3 of Against Heresies, goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
I think you're drawing some long bows, Ben.
In what way(s) am I exaggerating?
Still interested in your answer to this question.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am The final bishop on the list suggests the approximate dates of these two somebodies, and the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment from book 3 of Against Heresies, goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
MrMacSon wrote: I think you're drawing some long bows, Ben.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:02 am In what way(s) am I exaggerating?
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:08 pm Still interested in your answer to this question.
The list of first Roman bishops seems to be unverified other than being asserted by Irenaeus and Eusbeius and I've not seen anything that actually dates papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, other than general assumption in the literature, though you have provided quite a bit of useful commentary about its provenance, thus -

1. http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 694#p89694

2. http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 694#p89694

3
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:11 pm
DCHindley wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:06 pm By the way, maybe I missed it, but who exactly identified P. Oxy 405 with Irenaeus AH? AH only survives (mostly) complete in Latin, not Greek. If one of the literary fragments of AH in Greek came even close to the Oxy fragments I think we can be sure that G & H would have quickly identified this fragment. But they admit the identity of the work escapes them. So, someone has had to do some pretty imaginative back translating from Latin to Greek to say "Ahah! This *must* be from Irenaeus AH!" FWIW, Matt. 3:16 occurs only in AH 3.9.3. Yet that passage in Matt. was also of interest to Heterodox Christians and Gnostics. A Google search got a lot of hits where this is assumed, but I'm just not seeing where someone gives a name to the person who connected the dots
I believe it was J. A. Robinson who made the connection. He probably did so on a hunch, originally, but what he wound up doing to demonstrate the connection is back translating the Latin version of this portion of Irenaeus into Greek and comparing it to the Greek found on the fragment. Later on Robinson's hypothesis was verified with the discovery of the Florilegium Achridense, a Greek florilegium which contained this portion of Irenaeus in Greek and lined up nicely with Robinson's back translation.

Does "the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus" have veracity.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:21 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am The final bishop on the list suggests the approximate dates of these two somebodies, and the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment from book 3 of Against Heresies, goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
MrMacSon wrote: I think you're drawing some long bows, Ben.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:02 am In what way(s) am I exaggerating?
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:08 pm Still interested in your answer to this question.
The list of first Roman bishops seems to be unverified other than being asserted by Irenaeus and Eusbeius and I've not seen anything that actually dates papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, other than general assumption in the literature, though you have provided quite a bit of useful commentary about its provenance, thus -

1. http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 694#p89694

2. http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 694#p89694

3
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:11 pm
DCHindley wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:06 pm By the way, maybe I missed it, but who exactly identified P. Oxy 405 with Irenaeus AH? AH only survives (mostly) complete in Latin, not Greek. If one of the literary fragments of AH in Greek came even close to the Oxy fragments I think we can be sure that G & H would have quickly identified this fragment. But they admit the identity of the work escapes them. So, someone has had to do some pretty imaginative back translating from Latin to Greek to say "Ahah! This *must* be from Irenaeus AH!" FWIW, Matt. 3:16 occurs only in AH 3.9.3. Yet that passage in Matt. was also of interest to Heterodox Christians and Gnostics. A Google search got a lot of hits where this is assumed, but I'm just not seeing where someone gives a name to the person who connected the dots
I believe it was J. A. Robinson who made the connection. He probably did so on a hunch, originally, but what he wound up doing to demonstrate the connection is back translating the Latin version of this portion of Irenaeus into Greek and comparing it to the Greek found on the fragment. Later on Robinson's hypothesis was verified with the discovery of the Florilegium Achridense, a Greek florilegium which contained this portion of Irenaeus in Greek and lined up nicely with Robinson's back translation.
Does "the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus" have veracity.
We are, for the most part, working with the same data here. It is not as if I have personally held papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 in my hands and dated it myself, nor as if I have read some long lost primary text which is thoroughly unavailable to you. I am looking at the episcopal lists and at Eusebius' quotations of Hegesippus and others and trying to come to reasonable conclusions. Is that fair to say?

Now, the statement to which you responded by suggesting that I was "drawing long bows" was this:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am The final bishop on the list suggests the approximate dates of these two somebodies, and the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment from book 3 of Against Heresies, goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
I had the list in front of me, as I presume you do in front of you, so we can both see who the final bishop on the list is. I made sure to use the term "putative date" for the date of the papyrus scrap in question. And I made sure to call the dates for Eleutherus exactly what they are: the traditional range of dates. I am, in other words, doing my level best not to exaggerate, not to make more of the evidence than is warranted. But you have suggested otherwise. And I would like you to explain yourself on that point.

You say that the list of bishops is unverified except for quotations from Irenaeus and Eusebius. Well, of course! Duh. Nobody is disputing that. It is the presence and composition of this list in Irenaeus and Eusebius (and in Epiphanius, for that matter) that we are trying to explain. Is the list accurate or inaccurate, or is it a mixture of both? Who originally compiled it, and during what time period? Verification of the list, for better or for worse, is exactly the effort at hand.

You also say that you have not seen anything that actually dates papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 except for assumptions in the literature. Well, let us change that, shall we?

405.png
405.png (66.75 KiB) Viewed 4263 times

This is a scan of the page from volume 3 of The Oxyrhynchus Papryi which dates 405 to "not later than the first half of the third century." The careful, reasonable scholars who assembled this important series of tomes handled each fragment personally, dated it using the standard methods of paleography, and then reported their findings in the official publication. Are such methods and the scholars who use them infallible? Of course not. But what do you want them to do? Publish the fragments without so much as an attempt to date them? If you wish to get hold of the fragments yourself, learn how paleographic dating works on the ground, and then redate them for us, that would be splendid. If you wish to quote some scholar who has already done this, and whom you trust more than the compilers of the original Oxyrhynchus tomes, that too would be splendid. Until that time, it makes sense to at least try to work within the constraints originally published. If a preponderance of other evidence speaks against the original date (that is, makes it impossible for a fragment of this work to date from so early in Egypt), fine! I have yet to see it, but fine. Bring it on. Let us use everything at our disposal to try to figure out this mess that is early Christianity. I am all in favor.

But to snipe from the sidelines, armed with no more than obfuscation and the withering desire to throw up dust, is just useless.

So, to return to my question, in what sense have I exaggerated? I chose my words carefully; at which juncture did I fail to be careful enough? Or are you simply more interested in making sure that nothing gets done than you are in mounting actual arguments for or against various hypotheses?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Secret Alias »

Exactly. Like shut up MrMacson. You show your true colors when you argue against the evidence. Why are you so adamant that scholarship is wrong? It's not like academics are sitting in a room somewhere 'plotting' to uphold a traditional date for Irenaeus. At best they take for granted that Irenaeus is dated to the second century because internal evidence supports traditional assumptions. Now they found this fragment. What are they supposed to do? I would be mortified if serious scholars followed your approach. Why? Because I assume that scholarship should act reasonably. With respect to this forum it is impossible to move on and discuss anything meaningful as long people like mountainman are at the forum. It's one thing to make a dissenting point once. But to continue sniping with stupid meaningless interjections is extremely annoying. Your basic worldview is wrong and stupid. You have no interest in actually developing an understanding of early Christianity based on the evidence or at least the plain implication of the evidence. So please shut up.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:45 am
We are, for the most part, working with the same data here. It is not as if I have personally held papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 in my hands and dated it myself, nor as if I have read some long lost primary text which is thoroughly unavailable to you. I am looking at the episcopal lists and at Eusebius' quotations of Hegesippus and others and trying to come to reasonable conclusions. Is that fair to say?
Sure. And, as you say, papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 is in the mix, as you then alluded to -

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:45 am Now, the statement to which you responded by suggesting that I was "drawing long bows" was this:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am The final bishop on the list suggests the approximate dates of these two somebodies, and the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment from book 3 of Against Heresies, goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
... we can both see who the final bishop on the list is. I made sure to use the term "putative date" for the date of the papyrus scrap in question. And I made sure to call the dates for Eleutherus exactly what they are: the traditional range of dates. I am, in other words, doing my level best not to exaggerate, not to make more of the evidence than is warranted. But you have suggested otherwise. And I would like you to explain yourself on that point.
My interpretation of and my general use of the term 'draw a long bow' is "making too much of the information at hand", not exagerating per se, or lying. In this case I don't think that the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 has much if any bearing on the make up of the bishop list or the the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.


Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:45 am
... the list of bishops is unverified except for quotations from Irenaeus and Eusebius ... Nobody is disputing that. It is the presence and composition of this list in Irenaeus and Eusebius (and in Epiphanius, for that matter) that we are trying to explain. Is the list accurate or inaccurate, or is it a mixture of both? Who originally compiled it, and during what time period? Verification of the list, for better or for worse, is exactly the effort at hand.
I appreciate that.


Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:45 am
You also say that you have not seen anything that actually dates papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 except for assumptions in the literature. Well, let us change that, shall we?

405.png

This is a scan of the page from volume 3 of The Oxyrhynchus Papryi which dates 405 to "not later than the first half of the third century." The careful, reasonable scholars who assembled this important series of tomes handled each fragment personally, dated it using the standard methods of paleography, and then reported their findings in the official publication. Are such methods and the scholars who use them infallible? Of course not.

I have looked into the dating of P.Oxy 405, and, in relaying that, I have considered and expressed concern about how paleography seems to be a method that relies on both textual features attributed to an age and how others perceive or portray them. See all of http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 672#p89672 (just updated and also posted on DCH's thread)

[eta: based on https://www.academia.edu/10485335/Irena ... b._version_ ]

( and the post immediately previous to it on the first thread http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 671#p89671 )

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:45 am
But what do you want them to do? Publish the fragments without so much as an attempt to date them? If you wish to get hold of the fragments yourself, learn how paleographic dating works on the ground1, and then redate them for us, that would be splendid. If you wish to quote some scholar who has already done this, and whom you trust more than the compilers of the original Oxyrhynchus tomes, that too would be splendid.
1 As the links I have just provided show, I have attempted to learn how paleographic dating has worked specifically for P. Oroxy 405.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:09 pmSure. And, as you say, papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 is in the mix, as you then alluded to -
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:45 am Now, the statement to which you responded by suggesting that I was "drawing long bows" was this:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:37 am The final bishop on the list suggests the approximate dates of these two somebodies, and the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, a fragment from book 3 of Against Heresies, goes well with a date for book 3 of that work within the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
... we can both see who the final bishop on the list is. I made sure to use the term "putative date" for the date of the papyrus scrap in question. And I made sure to call the dates for Eleutherus exactly what they are: the traditional range of dates. I am, in other words, doing my level best not to exaggerate, not to make more of the evidence than is warranted. But you have suggested otherwise. And I would like you to explain yourself on that point.
My interpretation of and my general use of the term 'draw a long bow' is "making too much of the information at hand", not exagerating per se, or lying.
Here you go. Let us look at some real dictionary entries or linguistic articles instead of just a forum post, shall we?

It’s an idiom dating back to at least the 1660s meaning “to exaggerate; to tell tall tales,” so it’s both more and less than simply “lying.” Link.

If someone draws a long bow, they lie or exaggerate. Link.

To draw the longbow: to exaggerate; to tell preposterous tales, to tell large stories. Link.

I have more. Many, many more....
In this case I don't think that the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 has much if any bearing on the make up of the bishop list or the the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
The question came up of whether book 3 of Against Heresies really dated to century II instead of much later, and you do not think that the date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 "has any bearing" on that question?? Really?? :wtf:
I have looked into the dating of P.Oxy 405, and, in relaying that, I have considered and expressed concern about how paleography seems to be a method that relies on both textual features attributed to an age and how others perceive or portray them. See all of http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 672#p89672 (just updated and also posted on DCH's thread)
All right, that is an article by Charles E. Hill. Can you please summarize what you think the article is saying about the putative date of 405? Because I feel like maybe Hill wrote one thing but what you read was quite another.
As the links I have just provided show, I have attempted to learn how paleographic dating has worked specifically for P. Oroxy 405.
And what are your conclusions? Has the fragment been misdated?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:34 pm
In this case I don't think that the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 has much if any bearing on the make up of the bishop list or the the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus.
The question came up of whether book 3 of Against Heresies really dated to century II instead of much later, and you do not think that the date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 "has any bearing" on that question?? Really?? :wtf:
I have looked into the dating of P.Oxy 405, and, in relaying that, I have considered and expressed concern about how paleography seems to be a method that relies on both textual features attributed to an age and how others perceive or portray them. See all of http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 672#p89672 (just updated and also posted on DCH's thread)
All right, that is an article by Charles E. Hill. Can you please summarize what you think the article is saying about the putative date of 405? Because I feel like maybe Hill wrote one thing but what you read was quite another.
As the links I have just provided show, I have attempted to learn how paleographic dating has worked specifically for P. Oroxy 405.
And what are your conclusions? Has the fragment been misdated?
I don't think P. Oroxy 405 has been adequately dated. Charles E. Hill's article emphasises it's use of diplai and how other Christian scribes used them, usually in time periods later than P. Oxy 405 has been putatively dated to.

One thing I did not address in the long summary-post/s I have made about Hill's article, which I am still digesting, but feel I have to address before I have fully done so, is that it seems to be merely asserted and assumed to be "so close chronologically to its original." eg, -
Written in what C. H. Roberts calls “a handsome professional hand,”10 the fragment has also gained notoriety for its being so close chronologically to its original. Book three of Against Heresies was written sometime in the 180’s, and Roberts was very confident that P.Oxy 405 should be dated to the late second century.11 In his memorable words the manuscript “reached Oxyrhynchus not long after the ink was dry on the author’s manuscript”.12 Peter Rodgers thinks “It is not impossible that Irenaeus himself had written the fragment”.13
Moreover, Hiil says later, in relation to Roberts,-
I have, so far, found no NT papyrus manuscript which uses diplai to mark quotations.35 The first Biblical manuscript I know of which does so, also the only one of the period which does so consistently, is Codex Vaticanus (early to middle fourth-century).

35 Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 23, mentioned almost in passing seeing ‘quotation signs’ in P4,64,67, but Skeat, who noted Roberts remark, said he could find none (T. C. Skeat, ‘The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?’ NTS 43 (1997), 1-34 at 2, 7). Nor could I.
ie. in footnote 35^ Hill provides doubt by both himself and another scholar, Skeats, about the veracity of Robert's scholarship.

Previously Hill had relied on Roberts: nb. footnote 25 in relation to moving the dating of Paris Bib. Nat. P.Gr. 1120 (a two-column papyrus codex found at Coptos, Egypt, one of six non-Biblical Christian manuscripts from the seventh century or earlier which use diplai), from the sixth century to the late third-century,25 -
25 The original edition by the discover (V. Scheil’s in Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique francaise au Caire 9.2 (Paris, 1893), v) dates it to the sixth century, but “little was then known about the dating of Greek Papyrus MSS,” as Roberts says (C. H. Roberts, Buried Books in Antiquity, Arundell Esdaile Memorial Lecture 1962 (The Library Association, 1963), 12). Subsequent scholars, including A. S. Hunt, Roberts, Turner, and Hurtado, date it to the third century.
I guess I would also need to read Roberts, Hun, Turner, and Hurtado, to know why the dating of Paris Bib. Nat. P.Gr. 1120 has been shifted from the sixth century to the third century or why or P. Oroxy 405 has been similarly dated. But I don't think Hill does more than rely on what I see as mere assertions and wishful thinking in dating any of these manuscripts.

So I wonder why
" .. the fragment has also gained notoriety for its being so close chronologically to its original."
and why
" ..Roberts was very confident that P.Oxy 405 should be dated to the late second century."

and, I re-iterate what I said previously -
"In this case I don't think that the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 has much if any bearing on the make up of the bishop list or the the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus."

--------------------------
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:34 pm
MrMacSon wrote: My interpretation of and my general use of the term 'draw a long bow' is "making too much of the information at hand", not exagerating per se, or lying.
Here you go. Let us look at some real dictionary entries or linguistic articles instead of just a forum post, shall we?
My use and definition of 'draw a long bow' and use of that phrase is independent of that forum post (which was just a quick grab to support my contention that my view and my general use of 'draw a long bow' is different to yours). I have now provided this further commentary in good faith, as I thought I had with the initial 'draw a long bow' colloqualism, and will not revisit this issue.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Parallels in the Accounts of Carpocrates and Cerinthus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:32 pmI don't think P. Oroxy 405 has been adequately dated. Charles E. Hill's article emphasises it's use of diplai and how other Christian scribes used them, usually in time periods later than P. Oxy 405 has been putatively dated to.
Usually but not always, right? Papyrus Michigan xviii.764 is dated as roughly contemporaneous with papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405, for example. What do you think this shows?
One thing I did not address in the long summary-post/s I have made about Hill's article, which I am still digesting, but feel I have to address before I have fully done so, is that it seems to be merely asserted and assumed to be "so close chronologically to its original." eg, -
Written in what C. H. Roberts calls “a handsome professional hand,”10 the fragment has also gained notoriety for its being so close chronologically to its original. Book three of Against Heresies was written sometime in the 180’s, and Roberts was very confident that P.Oxy 405 should be dated to the late second century.11 In his memorable words the manuscript “reached Oxyrhynchus not long after the ink was dry on the author’s manuscript”.12 Peter Rodgers thinks “It is not impossible that Irenaeus himself had written the fragment”.13
The highlighted part is flatly incorrect. That the fragment is chronologically close to its original is the necessary result of (A) the fragment being dated to late century II or early century III and (B) the original text of Against Heresies being dated to around 180 or 185 or so. It is not, therefore, an assumption. Remember also that the fragment was dated before it was known to come from Against Heresies.
But I don't think Hill does more than rely on what I see as mere assertions and wishful thinking.
So Hill does not help. What next?
So I wonder why
" .. the fragment has also gained notoriety for its being so close chronologically to its original."
Because it was dated to a time shortly after or even contemporaneous with the putative date of Against Heresies. How are you not seeing this? What information are you missing that is preventing you from grasping the obvious here? Everything about this depends upon the date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405. Without that date the fragment could not have "gained notoriety for its being so close chronologically to its original."
and why
" ..Roberts was very confident that P.Oxy 405 should be dated to the late second century."
I am not sure why you are harping on Roberts so much. Grenfell and Hunt dated the fragment to late century II or early century III in volume 3 of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. If you do not like Roberts' dating, ignore it and go with the more cautious range, if you like. It changes nothing so far.
and, I re-iterate what I said previously -
"In this case I don't think that the putative date of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 has much if any bearing on the make up of the bishop list or the the traditional range of dates for Eleutherus."
You can reiterate it all you like, but it is no more true on its second or third affirmation than it was on its first. Again, the date of book 3 of Against Heresies was brought up. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 is a fragment of book 3 of Against Heresies. How on earth are you denying at least the relevance of the date of the fragment to that question?

As for your comment about "drawing long bows," yes, after I was so bleeding careful to be precise and accurate with my language, I absolutely took it as something of an insult that you would suggest otherwise without any apparent ability whatsoever to back it up.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply