Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby recently posted on XTALk with a cite from a 1989 book that puts p52 at 175 +/- 25 years. I see if I can track down the post.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Oh boy! Here we go on p52 again!

Steven, p52 contains much more than 20 letters! It is also used in the critical apparatus of the NA27.

Haran

Haran

Actually, the KJV is based on the TR. The TR was based on Erasmus' edition of the Greek which used a handful of late Byzantine text-type MSS. Erasmus couldn't find a complete MS for the text of Revelation, so for the parts he was missing he translated the latin Vulgate (I think that's right - the Vulgate) back into Greek.

These can all be found on the website I listed above. There are some "codes" to know first though.

-------------------------
Vaticanus - "B"
Sinaiticus - Hebrew "Aleph" (look a little like an X)
Alexandrinus - "A"
Zacynthius - Greek "Xi"
Ephraemi - "C"
-------------------------
Vulgate - Latin tranlslation of the OT and NT by Jerome - several types due to corruption - original created ~4th century
Septugint - the OT in many versions, the original supposedly dates back around 200B.C. (if I remember right)

Haran

CX

I hate to rehash this argument again because your conclusion is largely correct. That being said P52 contains, by my count, about 103 identifiable letters far greater than the 20 you asserted. Secondly it has 10 or so complete words and at least 2 instances of complete consecutive words. Although it IS extremely fragmentary and not really useful for text critical issues, it is nonetheless listed in the critical apparatus of the NA27 as supporting the canonical text. Your last statement is also incorrect. See our previous discussion in my NT Manuscript evidence thread. The P52 text attests to the canonical text as well as 1 trivial variant (P66).

CX

According to the appendix in NA27

I. CODICES GRAECI ET LATINI IN HAC EDITIONE ADHIBITI

A. CODICES GRAECI

IV

B/03 IV

A/02 V

"Xi"/040 VI

C/04 V

(Roman numerals denote the century of origin for the codex)

Steven Carr

<a href="http://www.historian.net/P52.html" target="_blank">http://www.historian.net/P52.html</a>


Here is a picture of it

<a href="http://home.debitel.net/user/martin.arhelger/tr/p52.jpg" target="_blank">http://home.debitel.net/user/martin.arhelger/tr/p52.jpg</a>

How can something where the only two complete words are 'kai legei' (and he says) be used to reconstruct the text of the NT?

Steven Carr

<a href="http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/frag3.htm" target="_blank">http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/frag3.htm</a>

Is a better picture of p52.

Perhaps 20 letters ia a better estimate of the number of undamaged letters, but as far as I can see there are only 2 totally undamaged words.

At any rate, even 120 letters hardly represents a textually important copy of John.

Haran

Where are you getting your information, Steven?

"kai legei"? That's not even in the MS...

You are probably referring, perhaps indirectly through another source, to "legei autw" on the verso. A little bit of the lambda is missing from "legei", however, so I'm surprised you'd count it.

There are another two words that are complete: "oudena ina" which can be found on the recto.

Here is a picture from my website where I have outlined the two instances of two consecutive words: <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/p52rvhlite.jpg" target="_blank">complete consecutive words on p52</a>.

The first website that you present was a pretty good website named the Scriptorium, though the author presents a lot of speculative material. Personally, I think <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/P52trans.html" target="_blank">my translation of p52</a> gives a much more accurate representation in English of what can be seen in the original Greek (though it is a little harder to read).

BTW, the second link you post is from a <a href="http://home.debitel.net/user/martin.arhelger/tr/texrec.htm" target="_blank">german website</a> about the Textus Receptus. It mentions the date being between 50A.D. and 150A.D., approximately 120A.D., and says that respected palaeographers date it earlier still. The website also talks about p52's important witness against the reading of the Textus Receptus. That's the reason for the big black arrow on the picture you posted.

Steven, you also posted, on another thread, the <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm" target="_blank">UK Atheist's</a> webpage's information. I've been speaking out against their information in some other threads. When I was in the library a week or so ago, I actually found the source of their error (i.e. "It [p52] does not have two complete consecutive words written on it.). The statement was gotten from Jack Finegan's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802818366/ref=ed_oe_p/102-7003071-6317756" target="_blank">Encountering New Testament Manuscripts</a>. However, there is more to the statement (and I think Finegan is rather dogmatic in his assertions on p52 anyway from what I read). I have his book on order because it did have some very interesting information. In his transcription, he does not recognize the lamda of "legei autw" or the upsilon of "touto" at the top of the verso. I find his view of not even making an attempt to recognize these letters because they are only partly there to be somewhat extreme. As a matter of fact, they were recognized by C.H. Roberts' transcriptions in the first publication of the papyrus (the letters seem rather obvious to me as well).

Finally, Steven, p52 is not of any great use to textual criticism, but as I said, it is mentioned and did influence (however little) the decision making processes behind the Nestle-Aland and UBS critical editions of the Greek text.

Ultimately, it's greatest importance has been its early date because it refutes the scholars who used to think that the Gospel of John wasn't written until the late 2nd century or later. It seems they were wrong and I wonder how many other papyrus they are wrong about today as well. Take the case of p46 which was argued on this website around a year ago or so. A certain scholar, Kim, had redated the papyrus much earlier than most scholars liked. Well, it seems that some scholars may be giving Kim's thesis a little more attention now. Look for "dating p46" on the <a href="http://rosetta.atla-certr.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?visit=tc-list" target="_blank">TC-List</a>.

Finally, if anyone wants more links to info on ancient papyri (among many other topics), check out <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/index.html#BPM" target="_blank">my website</a>.

Oh, one final note. If you haven't read the other thread, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000221" target="_blank">Manuscript Evidence and the New Testament</a>, about p52, Steven, it was pretty interesting. You might check it out.

Haran

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Haran

Heh... I just noticed your name at the bottom of the UK Atheist website, Steven.

Perhaps, since I have your attention, I could get you to modify the statements on p52 to be more accurate. As a matter of fact, some of the other information on the site is rather biased and not necessarily correct. In other words, I think the site is in need of a little more research and unbiased presentation.

Haran

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Well, it seems that some scholars may be giving Kim's thesis a little more attention now. Look for "dating p46" on the

Kim's thesis was decisively refuted by Oxford scholar Bruce Griffin at a conference back in 1996. We went through this argument last year and no new evidence has emerged to counter Griffin's arguments. This horse will never die, not because Kim was right, but because some conservative Christians want to date that text early for reasons of faith alone. I expect to be hearing about the "revival" or "reconsideration" of Kim's arguments periodically for the rest of my life.

Vorkosigan