On the textualcriticism discussionlist, Arie Dirkzwager draws the attention to Young Kyu Kim's article "Palaeographical Dating of p46 to the Later First Century" which is available online here.
Arie asked for comments on the article. For some reason my reply to the discussionlist is bouncing back so I have to reply offlist to Arie. Anyway, Kim's article (and the dating of P46) was discussed on the old TC-list, and the particular thread was started by no other than the founder of the new textualcriticism discussionlist, Wieland Willker:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tc-list/message/6123
... followed by several other messages in the thread.
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
Tommy,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure we'd be interested in your comments here too!
This is actually interesting. I've read Kim's article and I know most if not all scholars took strong opinions against it. Yet I have not found a rebuttal published that would show point by point where Kim goes astray ... Does anyone know of one? And I'm not referring to discussion lists.
ReplyDeleteOne might wish to consult the following:
ReplyDeleteS. R. Pickering, "The Dating of the Chester Beatty-Michigan Codex of the Pauline Epistles (p46)," in Ancient History in a Modern University, vol. 2: Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond, ed. by T.W. Hilliard, R.A. Kearsley, C.E.V. Nixon, and A.M. Nobbs (Eerdmans, 1998) 216-227. It addresses seriatim many of Kim's key points.
Mike Holmes