Thanks to all, who responded! There is an overall agreement on date and content. Papyrus, 6th or 7th CE Greek minuscule, documentary Readings: l. 2 touMessage 1 of 4 , Aug 22, 2005View SourceThanks to all, who responded!
There is an overall agreement on date and content.
Papyrus, 6th or 7th CE
Greek minuscule, documentary
l. 2 tou kefal[aiou]
l. 3 *]p?eri touto[u*
l. 4 tOi
tou kephalaiou = the capital, this seems to point to a loan (capital and interest), a contract, perhaps a private letter.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
... From: Dave Washburn To: Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism]Message 2 of 4 , Sep 3, 2005View Source
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur@...>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Unidentified fragment
> On Monday 22 August 2005 00:07, Wieland Willker wrote:
>> James M. Darlack, Assistant Librarian at Goddard Library, Gordon-Conwell
>> Theological Seminary, asked me about the following fragment, which he
>> in their collection:
>> The description is as follows:
>> Papyrus Fragment (10.8 x 9.8 cm.)
>> "This fragment is part of the Babson Collection in the rare book room of
>> Goddard Library. The fragment was previously owned by the Open Church
>> Foundation Bible Museum, Gloucester, Massachusetts, and before that by
>> Roger Babson. When the fragment was received by Goddard Library in the
>> early 1970s, it was accompanied by a sign which read: “100-200 A.D.
>> Fragment of Bible script on parchment.” However, the material is not
>> parchment, the library has been unable to verify that the text is from
>> Bible, and the dating too is in question. Even the language and type of
>> script remain unidentified, although it may be cursive Greek. Compare the
>> similar “fragmentary Greek papyrus” from the Nahal Hever cave, circa 132
>> A.D., a photograph of which was published in the Israel Exploration
>> Journal; v. 12, no. 3-4 (1962): plate 32."
> So whoever gave it to the library got everything wrong except possibly the
> word "fragment"? That's funny.
I think it more likely that the tag belonged to a different text fragment.