Phlox Pyros

Stephen, do you have quick access to Robert's book? I'd really like to understand the following...

Nongbri seems to be saying that Roberts originally dated P52 to ca. 150 A.D. However, Finegan (in the quote above) cites Roberts in saying that the letters are most like dated manuscripts of A.D. 94 and 127 A.D. Comfort makes a similar claim to Finegan and states: "...P.Berolinenses 6845 is the closest parallel, in Robert's opinion."

Who is correct here?

gregor

Phlox

We are obviously not using the same definition for "probably" as I intend the term to relate to probabilities and you intend the term to be synonymous with "reasonable to assume."

If you have a text with 100 words in it, and another text with 99 of the same words in the same order, but one missing word, the "probability" that the missing word is the same as the other text is essentially 0. The missing word could be any real word, any imagined word, or nothing at all.

S.C.Carlson

I've now re-read Nongbri, instead of relying on my memory of it. Nongbri quotes Roberts for the "first half of the second century as the period in which P.Ryl. Gk. 457 was most probably written." He does not get any more precise than that, however. So I was wrong to wring more precision out of Roberts, as are Finegan and Comfort for that matter.

Nongbri's article also has a picture of P. Berol. 6845. It is an undated copy of the Iliad. I'm not sure, from a methodological perspective, how this undated sample provides the necessary reference point for a paleographical dating.

I tried arranging all the letters from the dated samples reproduced in Nongbri's article from 90 to 220, and I was most impressed with the stability of the letter forms of the letter extant in P52 over this period.

Stephen

Vorkosigan

The theology of Mark is very highly developed. It is just very different from John.