What made Thiede arrive at his conclusion was by comparing the handwriting of the Magdalen papyrus with 1st century fragments from different areas (Qumran, Naḥal Ḥever, Herculaneum). In his opinion, similarities of script ‘could point towards a first century date’ for the fragment.
Some of the similarities which Thiede proposes. however, are doubtful. Compare for example the handwriting of the Magdalen papyrus with the Naḥal Ḥever Minor Prophets scroll (8ḤevXIIgr, mid-1st century AD), which Thiede used with the Magdalen papyrus as the main comparative script. Even one with totally no experience on papyrology or paleography would see that the two exhibit different styles of handwriting. As
this rebuttal of Thiede notes (footnotes have not been included):
Thiede suggested that the consensus ‘around A.D. 200’ was merely a convenient ‘dumping ground’ and that Roberts’ revision of Hunt’s suggested date from fourth century to late second century needs further revision in light of new manuscript finds. These manuscript finds come with archaeologically fixed final dates (termini ante quem).
The first is the Greek Minor Prophet scroll from Nahal Hever (
8HevXIIgr), dated by most scholars between 50 BC and AD 50 (see plate two). Thiede noted: ‘the identity and near-identity of several letters is striking: alpha, epsilon…, iota, omicron, rho and nu are particularly close’. We have reproduced as plate two the page to which Thiede refers in his discussion (columns B1-2 = Zc. 8.18-9.5). This represents the work of one of the two scribes involved in producing the manuscript (this incidentally shows that two contemporary scribes from the same location working on the same text in a similar style can nevertheless have quite distinct scripts).
Close inspection provides little support for Thiede’s contention that two scripts are similar. Other than the obvious similarity of bilinear majuscule lettering, this script (
8HevXIIgr Scribe B) has a more decorated appearance than P64; note especially the ornamentation of the letter-forms in blobs, hooks and half-serifs. In the size and spacing of the letters, the thinner pen-strokes, and the use of small spaces between words,
8HevXIIgr appears quite distinct from P64. Even the letters which Thiede specifically highlights are actually quite distinct: the alphas of
8HevXIIgr have a generally horizontal cross-bar (P64: distinct angle from lower left to upper right); the epsilons have detached cross bars (no parallel in P64); the iotas have decoration and do not extend as far below the line as P64; the rho has a pronounced decorative blob on the end of its down-stroke (contrast P64); the nus also have pronounced decorative blobs at each join (unlike P64). Of the letters to which Thiede draws attention, only the omicrons are similar, and little significance can be drawn from this.
Furthermore to take into account only similarities between letters and to ignore their differences is methodologically untenable. In many ways, when trying to draw comparisons between scripts, differences between letter-forms are of more importance than the odd similarity (after all there are only so many ways in which letters can be written). For differences, note the upsilon (
8HevXIIgr: straight lines and 90 degree angle cf. P64 with curve), sigma (8HevXIIgr: extended horizontals), and mu (
8HevXIIgr: outward pointing down-strokes).[49] The only conclusion which can be drawn from this evidence is that there is no significant relationship between the script and style of
P. Magd. Gr. 17 and
8HevXIIgr. There is, then, nothing to be gained from a discussion of the date of
8HevXIIgr, and Thiede’s claim to have found significant new evidence may be unfounded.
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/696/nahalhever2.jpg
The thing is, dating the date of a manuscript solely by the handwriting is really difficult and shaky: given how the dating of papyri is not really an exact science, this should tell us something. (This was actually an issue with the first undisputed surviving fragment of the NT,
Papyrus 52.) Papyrologists get an idea of when a manuscript was written based on the writing materials (the medium - in this case, papyrus - and the ink) and the evaluation of the forms of the letters. Fortunately, some ancient documents are dated by their scribes, or they refer to some datable event, and the forms of writing on these documents can help papyrologists determine when different forms of writing passed into and out of use. This knowledge can also be applied to other manuscripts which are not dated. If the independents of several, trained papyrological experts agree on a rough date, we can place confidence in their evaluations. But, as one can imagine, unless the scribe provided a date, these methods can only produce approximate results. In fact, it is often the case that experts disagree to a greater or lesser extent in their datings of manuscripts.
Oh, and finally, what Thiede actually claims is not so much that the Magdalen papyrus dates from the mid-1st century (although he is sympathetic towards a pre-AD 70 date), but that it is from the 1st century in general with no specific date in mind (he repeatedly refers to “a first-century date” or “prior to the turn of the century”), although he does in conclusion seem to date it “some time after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.”
I do not give a precise date, but suggest a date in the last third of the first century: The ‘starting point’ is the middle of the century; I allow for a variation of c. 20 years + / - and then opt for the later end, ‘soon after A.D. 70’.
