Talk:Papyrus 46

message: * Firstly thanks Andrewc for your edit. I agree it makes a lot more sense. Also I've also just noticed that you've tidied up my rather messy ref's to Griffin's paper and updated email. Your's is certainly much clearer.
* Secondly, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't be using Griffin as the 'main' ref rather than Harris. This rather relates to my 2nd point about which ed. of NBD you're using.
Mercury543210 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference has been in the article since it was first created by User:Ta bu shi da yu. I personally do not have a New Bible Dictionary on hand to check. I would be fine using the Griffin as the main ref if you'd prefer. Doesn't matter much to me. My source is the Alands' The Text of the New Testament, which lists it as c. 200. (they do everything in 50 year intervals for the most part). -Andrew c 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry Andrewc we seem to have cross-posted, hence my comments about NBD! I'm aware there's a 1996 ed. which I do not have, hence my question. If you're happy I'll relegate Harris and use Griffin's 175-225 date in the intro as it seems the 'most likely'. I'd also checked NA but as you say it wasn't very specific. Mercury543210 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating section

message: Andrewc, I was puzzled why you reverted my corrections of the Harris ref. What edition are you using of the NBD? Mercury543210 21:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have missed that. I apologize. I reverted back to the previous version, and copy and pasted your new text to the new dating section. I guess I missed the page number change in the Harris reference. It was not intentional, so thanks for putting your fix back in.-Andrew c 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harris ref

message: If the last leaves are missing, how is it possible to know that there were seven of them and not more or less? Please add this info, as currently this does not seem very logical. -- 92.229.117.222 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great question! It's explained pretty well here. Basically, we know how much is missing from the beginning, because there are some page numbers, and the length of the missing part of Romans accords perfectly with that. If seven leaves were lost from the beginning, then seven were lost from the end (the first and last leaves were together on a folded sheet, then the second and second-to-last leaves were on another folded sheet, and so on, like the pages in a magazine). I'll see if I can mention this in the article somehow. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven leaves at the end? Why seven? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Papyrus 46. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312191807/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/Papyri-list.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/Papyri-list.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified