Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: The Date of P52

Expand Messages
  • Mitch Larramore
    Dr. Willker, My original example of how to date two mss went awry when I then specifically discussed datingĀ  P52 and the Diatessaron, is clearly, as you say,
    Message 1 of 88 , Aug 17, 2009
      Dr. Willker,

      My original example of how to date two mss went awry when I then specifically discussed dating  P52 and the Diatessaron, is clearly, as you say, incorrect. I should never had used the Diatessaron and its date by "letter formation." I would date the Diatessaron by the historical data, once again as you mentioned. Sorry for my sloppy thinking. Feel free to correct me anytime; I would consider your scholarship in TC far more advanced than mine!! This website is an important avenue of my learning.

      Mitch Larramore
      Augusta, GA

      --- On Mon, 8/17/09, Wieland Willker <wie@...> wrote:

      From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: The Date of P52
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 12:13 PM


      > P52 does not have a lot of text, but the letter formation
      in it is
      > noticeably earlier than the Diatessaron' s letter
      > What are their exact dates? I don't know exactly, but P52
      > no doubt earlier than the Diatessaron. That is why most
      > the Diatessaron within sector Y (140 to 170, for example),

      > and P52 in sector X (110 to 125, for example).

      What are you talking about?
      0212? It's not clear if this is from the Diatessaron.
      We do not have any papyrus fragments of the Diatessaron.
      It is dated based on historical considerations only.

      Best wishes
      ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:wie@uni-bremen. de
      http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie
      Textcritical Commentary:
      http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie/TCG/ index.html

    • tom630965
      ... Tim the publishers have put the first chapter of Roger Bagnall s book on redating Egyptian papyri on the intenet
      Message 88 of 88 , Aug 18, 2009
        > Dear Listers,
        > I think that Arie's third point is worth noting.
        > There has been a recent tendency to redate Christian manuscripts later. There have been some attempts to redate things earlier, but usually these are forgotten about after a little while (e.g. Kim's redating of P46).
        > I'm not sure what is driving the general trend towards later dates. It could be the result of having more data at hand. One thing that may have been influential was Roger Bagnall's paper on Christian names in Egypt as derived from documentary papyri (e.g. tax records). He came to the conclusion that there were not many Christians in Egypt before about 300 AD based on the occurrence of Christian names in official records. Of course there is another explanation for the lack of Christian names which is that you would use your Egyptian name when talking to a tax official as, until 313 AD, being a Christian could be dangerous to your health if officialdom found out.
        > These books are a help when considering the possible date of a manuscript:
        > E. G. Turner, _Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World_, 2d rev. ed. (ed. P. J. Parsons), Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement 46, London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987.
        > G. Cavallo and H. Maehler, _Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period A.D. 300-800_, Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement 47, London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987.
        > There is an alternative way to date manuscripts which is seldom if ever used, which is carbon dating. There is an associated margin of error, I'm not sure what, possibly +/- a century. The test destroys the part sampled. I seem to remember hearing that the labs are getting better at dating with quite small samples. So, if we really wanted to know the date of Sinaiticus, which by the way is probably much later than the date of its text, we could cut off a piece and date it.
        > The same could be done with some of our early papyri which have some blank spaces (e.g. margins) that no one would miss. If we did this with a few of them then we would have a better idea of their actual dates.
        > Best,
        > Tim Finney


        the publishers have put the first chapter of Roger Bagnall's book on redating Egyptian papyri on the intenet


        the argument here is not based on tax records, but on the absence of any clear examples of Christian correspondence earlier than the episcopate of Demetrios (189 - 231). He then argues that the apparent survival of earlier biblical (and apocryphal) papyri appears inconsistent with the observation that there are no Christian letters.

        He suggests that the proposed early Christian papyri largely form a group of their own - that are difficult to date with reference to non-christian dated comparitors, as book-hands changed very little from the 2nd to the late 3rd century.

        With reference to P52 he says:

        "The first of these is a small bit of the Gospel of John in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, of unknown provenance.28 It is the only fragment dated by Turner to the second century without qualification. More recently, however, one scholar has argued that it should be reassigned to the early third century, on the basis of a comparison with P.Chester Beatty X.29 That may be too definitive, but an exhaustive article by Brent Nongbi (2005) has brought forward a range of palaeographical parallels that undermine confidence in an early date, even if they do not fully establish one in the late second or early third century"

        (I am not sure that Bagnall's characterisation of Nongbi's conclusions here is correct; as I recall Nongbi saying that "I have not radically revised Roberts's work", which I take to mean that Nongbi accepts that the preponderance of comparitor hands does indeed indicate that P52 "may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D.". Nongbi's expressed concerns relate to the margin of error, rather than to the central estimate of date).

        Not having the full text of Bagnall's book, I cannot offer a detailed critque of his approach - although I do note that he regards all the scriptural codices as being written in a book-hand; where Roberts specfically describes p52 as a ".. reformed documentary hand. (One advantage for the paleogapher in such hands is that with their close links to the documents they are somewhat less difficult to date than purely calligraphic hands)."

        I would be interested in the perspectives of anyone who knows Roger Bagnall's work rather better.


        Tom Hennell
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.