From: Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net)
Date: Tue Jan 05 1999 - 17:06:34 EST
jtownsle@iupui.edu wrote:
>
> Here is a follow-up to my last question.
>
> How well accepted is it that we have Greek Gospel fragments from pre-100
> CE (O'Callaghan's Mark fragment @60, Thiede's Matthew frag at 60, Luke
> frag at 90, and John frag at 110)?
It is not accepted by DSS scholars that the cave 7 fragments
represent NT works. Thiede's dating of the Magdalen Papyri
to the 1st half of the 1st century based on the palaeography
is all wet. The Zietschrift style continued in use well
into the 3rd century. The fragments are from a codex which
I do not place in Christian usage that early.
The John Fragment (P52) is the earliest fragment of a
NT dating to the first quarter of the 2nd century...perhaps
evan a decade before.
>
> On the flip side, what are the earliest Aramaic fragments, and the
> strength of evidence for an early dating of those frags?
Aramaic fragments of....? If you are asking about Aramaic
NT texts, the oldest would probably be the Sinaitic Syriac
which was copied in the 4th century from a text form that
dates to the close of the 2nd or beginning of the 3rd
century. It's important to understand that these texts are
translations from Greek texts, probably of Western text type.
Jack
______________________________________________
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
Jack Kilmon
jkilmon@historian.net
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:13 EDT