unknown4

Isn't it somewhat speculation that P52 is truly a fragment of the Gospel of John? According to this webpage, http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/john.htm, "If we imagine 79 missing words we can derive a passage found in chapter 18 of John's Gospel (or the Gospel of Nicodemus for that matter).
Earliest known fragment of a gospel (optimistically dated to first half 2nd c)".

So, do we really know that this fragment was an early Gospel of John?

andrewcriddle

One possible argument for an early date which I
put forward rather cautiously is that P52 probably
had Jesus written out in full rather than as a
nomina sacra (eg IS with overline) C. Tuckett
2001 NTS 47: 544-548. "P52 and Nomina Sacra"
deduces this from calculating the number of letters
that would fit in the gaps in P52 compared to the
amount of text available to fill the gap.

If the author is right (I'm a bit skeptical) then IMO
the most likely explanation is that P52 was written
before the nomina sacra system was properly
developed. Since Jesus appears to be already treated
as a nomina sacra (IH) in the Epistle of Barnabas
chapter 9 this could indicate a very early date for
P52 maybe before AD 135

Andrew Criddle

Haran

Not exactly a website that I would pick as a scholarly authority on text critical issues, but...

Is there an elaboration of this claim (preferably with Greek texts) anywhere on their website (ie. specifically the part about the Gospel of Nicodemus)? If not, you might ask them for more of an elaboration. I'd like to see what the evidence is for this claim.

For others:
Who is Schmidt? Is he considered one of the top Greek paleographers? In what book/journal does he make his claim about the dating of p52? Somehow I have missed reading him, although I have heard of his dating. I have also been under the impression that it was fringe. What do we know about his "newer" selection of manuscripts for comparison? Are they dated manuscripts? Was his analysis truly "ignored", or was there a response somewhere?

andrewcriddle

The reference is
A. Schmidt, ZWEI ANMERKUNGEN ZU P.RYL.III 457, APF 35, 1989
(APF is Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete)

according to Yuri Kuchinsky at http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm

the redating is based on comparison with the Chester
Beatty papyri. They're not exactly new (published at the
end of the 1930's) but they were not available for Roberts
when he did the editio princeps and initial dating.

If the redating genuinely is based on the Chester Beatty
material then I'm a bit puzzled. They are not dated
manuscripts and are usually thought to have been written
shortly after 200 CE

Andrew Criddle

Haran

We have short memories around here, huh?

Ancient thread on p52.

I noticed that you appear to have changed your opinion on whether p52 was from GJohn, spin. What changed your mind?

(...no sarcasm intended in this post...i really don't like flame wars like in parts of the above thread...never did, really...)

CX

It's obvious from the thread it was my superior reasoning and brilliant rhetorical acumen that convinced him.

CX

Yes the Greek as well. Quick survey reveals that the majority of NT MSS copies from the second century onward come from codices. I don't have my references handy at the moment, but I'll check in the morning what the other earliest fragments look like.

Peter Kirby

Dating p52 "somewhere between AD 100 and 150" is dating it around AD 125. To date the papyrus to the year AD 125 or to a tighter range such as AD 120-130 is simply to misunderstand what paleography can establish. (Putting aside the question raised of whether 125 is the most justified midpoint.)

best,
Peter Kirby

spin

I haven't. I'm just being lazy. I can't be bothered arguing about it, as it is easier just to point out the usual dating given to the text is questionable, verging on apologetic.


spin

spin

Great, thanks. That resolves a quibble of mine.

I'd be interested to know about the Oxyrhynchus paps of the 1st century, to see if they reflect the trend.


spin