Larry Hurtado does not appear to be particularly interested in P52 since he makes no mention of it in his post, though he does mention around 15 other manuscripts. Thiede has argued for a first century date for P52. P104 is very similar, from a graphic point of view, to P52: Comfort–Barrett and Jaroš instead proposed PSI XI 1213 (NORSA, 1929-1946, pl. The present article analyzes the date of the earliest New Testament papyri on the basis of comparative palaeography and a clear distinction between different types of literary scripts.
So for the benefit of those who are curious, here are the relevant points and conclusion of Pasquale Orsini & Willy Clarysse. (Papyrologists have generally reacted negatively to Thiede’s general arguments for earlier dating of manuscripts.) B. There are no first-century New Testament papyri and only very few papyri can be attributed to the (second half of the) second century.
saxy hukana girl - Dating of p46
In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available.
We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer.
In the process of copying, however, scribal errors are bound to occur.
There is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes.
The main point of interest of this fragment is that it is generally dated to around 125 CE, and that since it was found in Egypt, this date accordingly is evidence that the Gospel of John, generally thought to have been composed in Asia Minor, must have been some time earlier than 125 CE. A consensus among papyrologists, palaeographers and New Testament scholars is presented in the edition of NESTLE–ALAND, 1994.
And since the Gospel of John is widely considered the latest of the canonical gospels, this fragment can serve as evidence for the traditional dating of the Gospels — the last decades of the first century. 48; TM 10930), written in 156 and one of the earliest dated witnesses for some fundamental characteristics of the “Alexandrian stylistic class”. In the last twenty years several New Testament scholars (THIEDE, COMFORT–BARRETT, 1999, 2001 and JAROŠ, 2006) have argued for an earlier date of most of these texts.
A science called textual criticism deals systematically with these mistakes to eliminate as many of them as possible.
The most important tools for textual critics are the manuscripts themselves.
They believed that their text reflected the original as well as possible, even if it was based on manuscripts dating from at least three centuries after the New Testament was written.
Gradually the new critical texts replaced Erasmus' text, which has not received much attention from serious scholars anymore.
Then, within a fairly short period, a number of manuscripts of superior quality became available, mainly thanks to the work of the German scholar Constantin Tischendorf.