andrewcriddle

This is partly a response to discussion in the 'Earl Doherty to speak in Los Angeles Sept 11 2004' thread.

It has been suggested that dating P52 somewhere between AD 100 and 150 rather than around 125 AD means that it doesn't really support an early date for John. And in particular that the effect of P52 in discrediting the late date
of John associated with 19th century 'liberal' scholars such as the Tubingen school may in retrospect have been unjustified. IMO this is wrong and in order to undermine the Tubingen school a date for p52 of before 150 AD is quite sufficient.

(I am aware of minority scholarly support for a substantially later dating of P52. Beyond saying that the support seems very limited I can't evaluate the argument but obviously a date for P52 of say after 175 AD would if true undermine its importance)

The major piece of external evidence for the late dating of John was that Justin Martyr (c 150-160 AD) does not appear to use John whereas Tatian his student (c 170 AD) used John as one of the four (or possibly five) gospels making up his harmony or Diatessaron. Hence it was suggested that John only became generally available toward the end of Jusin's life say 160 AD

P52 however shows that John was available by 150 AD at the very latest and probably well before. Hence Justin's non-use of John is irrelevant to the issue (IMHO Justin knew John existed but did not regard it as apostolic). Given that Justin is irrelevant the other external evidence (as normally interpreted) clearly points to a date for John no later than the beginning of the 2nd century.

Andrew Criddle

spin

As A. Schmidt, who you indirectly refer to, has dated the text to 170 CE +/- 25 years, I see no reason to accept the 125 +/- as a benchmark. Schmidt had access to a lot of epigraphy not available to the original daters of p52, so it must be more informed. It may also be wrong, but that has not been established. Until a valid dating for p52 can be made, one cannot simply ignore Schmidt and hope to be taken seriously. He has been ignored by most since 1989.


spin

CX

Given the extremely fragmentary nature of the Rylands papyrus I wonder how much value it can possibly have for any historical argument.

spin

Despite its small and fragmentary nature it is written on both sides with Johannine material, which not only supports both passages but also the tacitly the material between them, necessary to make up the space. This suggests a relatively representative section of the gospel of John as we know it.

Tangential question: when did they start writing on both sides of the medium, which, it seems, implies codex rather than scroll?


spin

andrewcriddle

I am not a paleographer.

However maverick datings (often in a 'conservative'
direction) are pretty common

Thiede's 1st century dating of the Magdalen papyrus
Kim's 1st century dating of P46 (Paul's epistles).

If those of us who are not paleographers wish to use the
results at all, then IMHO we have no real choice but to
follow the consensus (while recognising that it may not be
as solid as it seems.)

Andrew Criddle

CX

Rylands is most definitely from a codex. By the second century nearly all Xian writing was in codex form, but the codex began probably around the 1st century BCE in Rome and was in regular use for copies of classical literature by the 1st century C.E.

spin

I'd say you can't use the data, as it has no known value.


spin

spin

Interesting. Would this mean Greek as well? And what's the situation with the other early dated fragments: are they also written on both sides? (I'm being lazy. Just have too many things going through my head.)


spin

Vorkosigan

The consensus here appears to be ignoring the evidence of the redating that puts p52 after 150. What should we do when the consensus is unsupported by data and extant data in fact contradicts it?

spin

This is a situation in which one plays my expert is better than yours and the conversation goes the way that it always does when someone argues that the status quo has a privileged position, the challenge of which requires substantive evidence, ie we're right until you can prove us wrong.


spin