[د/ عبد الرحمن]

كما تركوا بالأسود الكلام التالى أيضا

اقتباس In light of the shared physical characteristics of these manu******s, we can now take up the question of their date. P64 was originally given a third-century date by Charles Huleatt, the one who donated the manu****** to Magdalen College. The papyrologist A. S. Hunt studied the fragments and dated them to the early fourth century. In reaction to this late dating, Colin Roberts published the manu******, dating it to ca. 200.14 Carsten Thiede has dated it to the second half of the first century.15 Thus, the manu****** has been dated progressively earlier. Hunt was too conservative in his dating, as was typical for much of his dating of New Testament papyri. His fourth-century date needed adjustment, and this was done quite thoroughly by Colin Roberts, who noted that the handwriting of P64 is a precursor to the “Biblical Uncial” of the third and fourth centuries. According to Roberts, the lettering in P64 corresponds most closely with that found in P. Oxy. 843, the handwriting of which is clearly a precursor to the Biblical Uncial lettering of the third and fourth centuries. However, P. Oxy. 843 differs from P64 in that the writing is slightly slanted and the omega (ω) is flat,16 as is common in third-century hands. Nonetheless, P. Oxy. 843 was dated by Grenfell and Hunt to ca. 200. Similar hands are exhibited in P. Oxy. 405 (ca. 200), P. Oxy. 1620 (second to third century), and P. Oxy. 1819 (second century). Thus, Roberts dated the manu****** to ca. 200, and this date was confirmed by three eminent papyrologists: Harold Bell, T. C. Skeat, and E. G. Turner.17 However, it would seem justifiable to date it earlier than ca. 200 because its style predates P. Oxy. 843. The question is, how much earlier?

و كما نرى توجد خلافات لا حصر لها على تاريخ المخطوطة
فمن العلماء من يقول إنها تعود للقرن الثانى و منهم من يقول الثالث و منهم من يقول النصف الثانى من القرن الأول
و فى خضم كل تلك الخلافات ... كيف يمكن الجزم بتاريخ المخطوطة ؟
حتى لو كان آخر تقييم لها أنها تعود للقرن الأول
فما أدرانا أنه بعد بضع سنين لا يخرج علينا باحث آخر يقول إنها تعود للقرن الرابع مثلا ؟
و ما الدليل على أن آخر تقييم هو التقييم الصحيح ؟

للمزيد من مواضيعي