tanya

Thank you Andrew. Is your opinion based on reading the review only, or also upon having read Bagnall's argument, itself?

Did Bagnall discuss, or did one of his contributors, any contemporary, systematic, thorough evaluation of hypothetical manuscript date by comparison of papyrus age established by radiocarbon dating, with that determined by palaeography?

Do you know of any first century papyrus documents, identified as definitely Christian? The oldest such document I know of, is the P46 representing Paul's letters, dated to late second century, contested, however, by Kim, who claims a date one century earlier, circa 80 CE.

I am especially interested to learn whether or not Bagnall's book explains to the interested reader, how and why Kim arrived at this very early date, and if Kim is wrong, then, why is his date incorrect? Does Bagnall's text, to be reissued in paperback form, next month, address this topic?

I am also interested to learn why, no one seems interested, to subject some portion of one page of this collection, either those in Dublin, or in Ann Arbor, to radiocarbon dating, which would definitively establish an earliest possible date for P46, as opposed to an actual date of composition of the text written upon the dated papyrus.

Does this new book, addressing the issue of palaeography, describe use of any newer techniques, to analyze the handwriting itself? I am thinking of, for example, ultraviolet spectral analysis, and other techniques such as electrostatic detection, used in forensic handwriting analysis.

Can Bagnall's book serve as a useful primer on the subject of Koine Greek palaeography, or do you recommend a different book, for that purpose?

andrewcriddle

Hi Tanya

My opinion is based entirely on the reviews. I haven't read the book.

Andrew Criddle