Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S.C.Carlson · 08-10-2005, 11:13 AM

On Crosstalk, Ken Olson has mentioned that a fairly recent issue of Harvard Theological Review has an article about P52. The article is Brent Nongbri, "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," HTR 98 (2005): 23-48.

Here is the abstract:

Quote:

The thesis of this paper is simple: we as critical readers of the New Testament often use John Rylands Greek Papyrus 3.457, also known as P52, in inappropriate ways, and we should stop doing so. A recent example will illustrate the problem. In what is on the whole a superb commentary on John's gospel, D. Moody Smith writes the following about the date of John:

For a time, particularly in the early part of the twentieth century, the possibility that John was not written, or at least not published, until [the] mid-second century was a viable one. At that time Justin Martyr espoused a logos Christology, without citing the Fourth Gospel explicitly. Such an omission by Justin would seem strange if the Gospel of John had already been written and was in circulation. Then the discovery and publication in the 1930s of two papyrus fragments made such a late dating difficult, if not impossible, to sustain. The first and most important is the fragment of John chapter 18 … [P52], dated by paleographers to the second quarter of the second century (125–150); the other is a fragment of a hitherto unknown gospel called Egerton Papyrus 2 from the same period, which obviously reflects knowledge of the Gospel of John…. For the Gospel of John to have been written and circulated in Egypt, where these fragments were found, a date no later than the first decade of the second century must be presumed.

This is more of a heads-up. I'm not familar with this article specially or the author's scholarship more generally to have an informed opinion about the merits of the paper's thesis.

S.C.Carlson · 08-10-2005, 11:21 AM

The conclusion of the paper that Olson quoted is as follows:

Quote:

What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel.

Toto · 08-10-2005, 11:35 AM

Thanks for the note.

Ken Olson's Crosstalk2 post is here (you do not have to be on the list to read it.)

Yuri Kuchinsky · 08-10-2005, 12:43 PM

Of course, I posted about this here already years ago...

It's good to see the mainstream scholarship catching up with what's going on on the Net!

THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm

Cheers,

Yuri.

Roger Pearse · 08-10-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The conclusion of the paper that Olson quoted is as follows:

Useful to know about - thank you. It will be interesting to see how an extant manuscript witness need not be the terminus ante quem, unless I have misunderstood and that is not what he is saying.

Toto: the Olson post was also useful -- thanks.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Vorkosigan · 08-11-2005, 01:30 AM

ROFL. How long have we been saying that here at Infidels?

S.C.Carlson · 08-12-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

This is more of a heads-up. I'm not familar with this article specially or the author's scholarship more generally to have an informed opinion about the merits of the paper's thesis.

OK, I've managed to read the article and have now blogged about it: Brent Nongbri on P52.

Vorkosigan · 08-12-2005, 11:48 PM

Thanks, Steve. That's valuable information.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2005, 11:35 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Thanks for the note. Ken Olson's Crosstalk2 post is here (you do not have to be on the list to read it.)

08-10-2005, 12:43 PM	#4
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Of course, I posted about this here already years ago... It's good to see the mainstream scholarship catching up with what's going on on the Net! THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm Cheers, Yuri.

08-11-2005, 01:30 AM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	ROFL. How long have we been saying that here at Infidels?

08-12-2005, 11:48 PM	#8
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Thanks, Steve. That's valuable information.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.