Ulrich

rodahi: Since I am obviously not qualified to comment on anything outside of the feild in which I hold a degree (Computer Programmig and Analysis), I respectfully withdraw from this discussion.

Nomad: Don't hold your breath, the couple of days has turned into a couple of weeks. Oh, I'm sorry, forgot, I'm not qualified to comment on time, as I am not a certified wristwatch technician.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ulrich:
rodahi: Since I am obviously not qualified to comment on anything outside of the feild in which I hold a degree (Computer Programmig and Analysis), I respectfully withdraw from this discussion.

I suppose that is why you never were able to present Nomad's "argument" that you were so impressed with.

Ulrich [to] Nomad: Don't hold your breath, the couple of days has turned into a couple of weeks. Oh, I'm sorry, forgot, I'm not qualified to comment on time, as I am not a certified wristwatch technician.

I will make a comment for Nomad, in the same manner in which your comment was made: Look at the calendar, not your watch. (The calendar doesn't have hands.)

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 15, 2001).]

I have found yet another respected source that rejects Young Kyu Kim's dating of P46. According to Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, this MS dates to around 200 CE.

Philip W. Comfort, a very conservative Christian, dates P46 to around the middle of the second century. While this dating is considerably earlier than that given by virtually all palaeographers, it still is far removed from the dating given by Kim. Comfort gives reasons for rejecting a first century dating of P46.

Since I plan to give an extensive refutation of Kim in the future (once I make contact with Bruce W. Griffin and other palaeographers who have examined P46), I will merely quote Comfort's rational for his dating: "My observation is that most of the manuscripts from the first century that Kim sees as displaying a hand comparable to P46 show some similarities in individual letters but not in overall appearance and therefore do not belong to the same time period as P46. Kim himself admits that several of these manuscripts display an early form of what we see later in P46, expecially with respect to the serifs at the bottom and tops of letters." The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, P. 205.

Comfort goes on to give several examples of extant MSS that Kim used for comparison to P46--a comparison that Comfort sees as inappropriate because they possessed too few similarities to P46. All these MSS date to the first century. He then gives MS examples that compare much better with P46--these MSS are dated to the second century.

Finally, Comfort states the following: "Another reasonable way to date P46 is to compare it with the other manuscripts with which it was discovered. The earliest manuscript in this collection is unquestionably P. Chester Beatty VI (Numbers-Deuteronomy). This manuscript, displaying a good example of a Roman type of hand, is very comparable to the great Hyperides manuscript, P. London 132 (early second century A.D.); the Herodus manuscript, P. Egerton 1 (ca. A.D. 100); and P. Oxy. 270 (a documentary text dated A.D. 94). Thus, Beatty VI should be dated around A.D. 125. P46 is probably not as early as Beatty VI; indeed, it seemed to Kenyon that P46 had 'lost a little of the simplicity of the best of the Roman hands.' In the final analysis, P46 belongs to the second century and probably belongs to the middle part of that century, when we consider its undeniable comparability with P. Oxy. 1622 (ca. A.D. 117-138), P. Oxy. 3721 (second half of second century), P. Rylands III 550 (second century), P. Berol 9810 (early second century), and P. Oxy. 841 (second hand; 125-150). Thus, it is my opinion tht P46 belongs to an era after A.D. 81-96 (the era posited by Kim)--perhaps the middle of the second century." Ibid, P. 206.

I should note here that Kim did not actually wish to date P46 to around 81-96 CE. He states in his article, [A comparative analysis with other selected MSS] "...strongly suggests that p46 was written some time before the reign of the emperor Domitian." Based on this statement, Kim was attempting to date this MS to the 70's. This would be an impossibility if the letter to the Hebrews, an anonymously-written letter contained in P46, was written when many scholars think it was written--80's or 90's CE.

The Pauline letters (and Hebrews) must have taken some time to be collected (as one group), given titles, sequenced, and copied, before circulation. (There is no evidence that the letters circulated as individual copies.) P46 is a copy of a copy. In other words the scribe in Egypt copied a copy of a collection of Paul's letters AFTER collections had been circulating in the West. It would have required many years before a copy of a copy of Paul's collected letters would have made its way to Egypt.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 20, 2001).]

Good source. This is one of the books I reference and is very respectable. Are you familiar with the "Munster Liste"? I have read somewhere that it is supposedly a more recent dating (by the Alands?) of the Papyri than in the most recent version (1989) of The Text....

In the books I have read, Comfort usually mentions the ca. 200 dating of P46, but he does seem to prefer a mid-second century dating. In his Essential Guide to Bible Versions (2000), he says: "Other papyrologists date it [P46] to the middle of the second century." The footnote to this sentence says: "See the full discussion in Comfort and Barrett, eds., Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 193-197."

Comfort's statement sounds as if there are scholars other than himself that subscribe to the mid-second century date. I haven't found this book yet, so I can't say for sure.

I think this statement is incorrect.

The letters themselves are written to specific congregations in order to address the issues within their gathering. This type of letter writing was common during this period. The letters would then be passed on to other congregations to read for edification.

I'll dig out my sources latter if necessary, but I believe Metzger, Comfort, and maybe the Alands mention that Paul's letters were "encyclicals" (written for one church and then passed from it to the next and on and on). They were latter titled (probably using the name of the original recipient) and compiled into a corpus to be passed on.

Regardless of what I said above, the rest of this is probably true and would seem to push back the date of composition for the original letter since it was first an "encyclical" and then part of a corpus.

Also, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri Vol. II by F.G. Kenyon (call no. - 220.48 B582) contains pictures of every single page of the P46 MS. When I went to the library the other day I found this book...cool! The pictures are clear (for the most part).

Now, if I could only find pictures of all the other MSS that Kim and Comfort are comparing it with... I'd like to check out the ligatures (connections between the greek letters), Nomina Sacra, etc. Any ideas on where to find pictures of the MSS being used for comparison, Rodahi?

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 20, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
There is no evidence that the [Pauline] letters circulated as individual copies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: I think this statement is incorrect.

The letters themselves are written to specific congregations in order to address the issues within their gathering. This type of letter writing was common during this period. The letters would then be passed on to other congregations to read for edification.

I'll dig out my sources latter if necessary, but I believe Metzger, Comfort, and maybe the Alands mention that Paul's letters were "encyclicals" (written for one church and then passed from it to the next and on and on). They were latter titled (probably using the name of the original recipient) and compiled into a corpus to be passed on.

Common sense would indicate that the individual letters may have been shared locally, but what evidence is there that they circulated widely (Rome to Egypt) prior to their being collected as a group?

rodahi

Ok, I see what you're saying. I'm not sure of any evidence that they circulated as wide as "Rome to Egypt". However, obviously Paul travelled from Israel to Greece and Rome. Egypt was much closer. There are also accounts in the early Church Fathers of Mark writing down Peter's words in Rome and taking them with him to Egypt. I don't see why the letters might not have also circulated this far.

I added a little "appendix" to my post above that might be of interest on P46.

Ish

I'd love to scan the pictures and post them on my website, but I'm not familiar with the laws regarding that kind of thing nor who to contact for permission. Oh well...

Actually, if you haven't already found it, page 88 of The Text of the New Testament by the Alands has a black and white picture of a leaf of p46. It definitely has Nomina Sacra (see Christou - XRY w/bar over top in the first line of the body, there are others on same page - IHY(Jesus), PNS(spirit), TY(God), TS(God)...), but I haven't done enough study to know whether these are "well-developed".

Also for reference, here is a picture of p46. In a quick glance for nomina sacra, I see a TS(GOD) at the top and it looks like a YIS(huios - Son) near the bottom. This is page 41 (note the mu/alpha centered a the top) of the p46 MS and you can see the beginning of the book of Hebrews (PROS EBRAIOYS).

Above and to the right of the title you can see a funny little symbol. That symbol is the greek word stichoi written like STI superscripted X and followed by a dash and a greek "letter-number" which I can't quite make out. This is known as a "stichometrical note" or, to quote Comfort's Essential Guide to Bible Versions, "notations at the end of a manuscript, recording how many lines were copied (as a means of measuring how much the scribe should be paid)".

Comfort says that these stichometrical notes are what cause Kenyon (in the book I noted that contains the pictures of P46) to originally date P46 to the early part of the 3rd century. Apparently, others who dated it earlier didn't view the notes the same way.

There was another greek MS also found in Egypt on the same page as P46 (I assume for comparison) that was dated to AD 250. Here is the picture. Brief explanations and links to the two are found here. Personally, I have a hard time seeing much resemblance if it was meant as a comparison. But then I'm not a paleographer.

I found both these pictures linked to by Wieland Willker's website.

As far as the ligatures go (and nomina sacra for that matter), you can find an excellent explanation (w/pictures) in Bruce Metzger's classic introduction to paleography, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. I don't see many ligatures in p46, though there are some connected letters in the overall text.

Unfortunately, I have had a bear of a time trying to obtain my own copy of Metzger's MSS of the Greek Bible. I tried CBD, www.christianbooks.com, because they have very low prices, but the date got pushed out and pushed out and they finally cancelled my order. Amazon doesn't seem to have it. Finally, I am attempting to order it through Barnes & Noble. However, the B website says immediate availability, but when I received confirmation of my order, it said that it would be at least 1-2 weeks before they had the book to send (Arrghhh...). I hope it doesn't get pushed out like the other order. Maybe if everyone here who is interested also goes out and orders the book, they will start making more of them.

Very true. I haven't found them yet and I don't personally think the one mentioned above is a good comparison. Let us know if you find any of them.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 21, 2001).]

Ulrich

Just wanted to drop by this thread in order to thank rodahi for finally presenting an argument. I will make no apologies for any of my previous posts, as this is the type of information that should have been presented to begin with. I do, however, appreciate the fact that rodahi did return here and present an argument rather than let the thread die. I realize that rodahi is yet to post the main part of his argument, but as I see it now, the ball is in Nomad's court, and my complaint has been satisfied.

I doubt that I can offer much more to this discussion, but I will be watching to see what turns up.

Thank you for you comments. I think Comfort just scratched the surface. Bruce Griffin or another practicing palaeographer who has examined P46 could give more and better reasons why Kim's dating (before the reign of Domitian) is virtually impossible. The problem is, and has been for the past month, the fact that Griffin's (and his paper on P46) precise whereabouts are unknown. He is a professor or student at Oxford, but has reportedly gone to Germany. His email address at Oxford is nonworking. I am continuing to try to find him.

I ordered the Society of Biblical Literature's 1996 Seminar Papers hoping Griffin's paper (S153--"The Palaeographicl Dating of P46"--delivered at SBL's 1996 annual meeting) would be included in the collection. As luck would have it, his paper is one that did not get included in SBL's publication.

At my request, an employee of SBL spent a goodly amount of time attempting to find out if an abstract of the paper was still in SBL's database. Again, no luck. She told me they have scholarly materials that date back to 1999 only.

I have emailed several legitimate palaeographers asking for opinions/evalution of P46. As of today, none who have actually examined P46 have responded. I will keep trying to get a palaeographer to comment.

rodahi