Bagnall suggests that we consider the spread of the codex an example of Romanization in the eastern Mediterranean world.

After 300 CE in particular, Jaroš assigns the latest possible date for manuscripts as older than than the earliest possible date accepted by Nestle-Aland (the papyrologists). 643-644), on the basis of the similarity of single letters, without considering the general graphic aspect.

This observation is important for the argumentation because the date of one text often depends on that of others. Palaeographical comparison may lead to chronological results when an undated manuscript is compared to an explicitly dated or to a datable one (i.e., a manuscript that contains no explicit date but objective chronological data, such as references to known people, places or events). They may: * Stylistic Class: a set of writings sharing a general framework, form and structure (in the number, sequence and direction of strokes) of some (but not necessarily all) letters; moreover, they may contain graphic variants of the same letter.

The second edition of Comfort–Barrett, with some corrections, was given a reasonably positive review in 2001 by M. Robinson in the same ; the reviewer concluded that this was “a useful primer for the student of New Testament papyri”, though he also stressed that “Comfort–Barrett appear to apply their own palaeographical criteria in dating various manuscripts and tend to claim an earlier date for many manuscripts included in their volume than might be allowed by other palaeographers“.

Clarysse publishes a table comparing the datings found in Nestle-Aland (the consensus of papyrologists) and Jaroš.

The idea of the Christians exploiting a distinctly Roman artefact to preserve their Scriptures does not sit well with such a presumption.

And here we return to one of the themes that unites Bagnall’s remarkably wide-ranging little book.

COMFORT– BARRETT, 1999, 2001), offer a full Greek text with (in most cases) photographs and a discussion of 64 New Testament manuscripts, for which they consider a date before AD 313 (or AD 320 according to JAROŠ, 2006, pp. In a similar work, published on a CD-ROM of no less than 5163 pages, Jaroš (cf.

JAROŠ, 2006) offers the full Greek text, including a diplomatic transcript, and a translation of 92 manuscripts (with photographs)., D. Parker noted in 1999 that “some attempts at early dating owe more to apologetics than to palaeography”, but his main criticism went to the transcriptions.

New Testament manuscripts are more problematic than other literary texts since they are nearly always written as part of a codex. And, secondly, there is little evidence for the emergence or visibility of Christianity in Egypt before the end of the second century. It is surprising that Bagnall did not attack the early dating of P52 more severely, especially given the fact that it was dated in relation to P. Egerton 2, has resulted in a revision of the dating of P. Hence, instead of the initial proposal of dating P.

This means that the script is the same on both sides of each page and neither side can be used to establish a NESTLE–ALAND, 1994 = K. JUNACK (Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 1), Berlin – New York, 1994; see updates in: In the first chapter ‘the Dating of the Earliest Christian Books in Egypt’, Bagnall advances the following proposition: ‘the narrowness of much [scholarship] has permitted its practitioners to reach conclusions that I believe are profoundly at odds with fundamental social realities of the ancient world and with basic probability’ (p. Egerton 2 to around 130, it is now seen as being written sometime closer to 200.

ALAND, Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Hand-schriften des Neuen Testaments. However, despite the fact that the hands of P52 and P.