Haran

Michael,

The website you reference makes the following statement:

Most of this I agree with except that I would be curious to know what constitutes "a slightly different wording" in P52. Also, I disagree with the following statement: "It does not have two complete consecutive words written on it." There are at least two instances of complete consecutive words on the fragment. Could there be some bias at play here?

Looking at the <a href="http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/frag3.htm" target="_blank">original</a> and looking at the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0842352651/qid=1014682913/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_3_2/103-8346869-8031000" target="_blank">transcription from Comfort & Barrett</a>, it's hard to see any significant differences.

I'll use Young's Literal Translation with my own modifications to try and give a sense of what can be seen in the original text (someone please correct me if I'm wrong...). The bolded text is my approximation of what remains visible on the MS fragment.

If anything can really be made from the above, I don't think I see any very significant wording changes.

As far as it's dating is concerned, Comfort says the following:

From this information, I believe that p52's text is essentially the same as our modern critical text (from what I can tell) and that it is quite old. The book of John with it's "High Christology" seems to have been in existence very early indeed.

Haran

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

CX

Well done, Haran, thanks for that. I can't say I agree with everything you say here, but your analysis of the fragment seems spot on. I wonder though, if you have a transliterated or greek version of the fragment that is easier to read than the fragment itself. I have tremendous difficulty making out the characters on the fragment even though I know what they are supposed to be, I think. I'd like to compare it to the critical text.

Haran

Thanks. What do you disagree with, just in case I might be able to clarify my point. You may simply disagree with my opinions about John and his "High Christology" being so early... If so, I probably can't change your mind about that...

There may be a transliteration online. I'll have to see if I can find one. If there is, I probably have a link to it somewhere on my website.

I linked to Comfort's book above. He transcribes the earliest MSS. He gives pictures and data (though you would probably find his data on the conservative side) as well as the greek transcription.

Also, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195029240/qid=1014741647/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/103-3257577-8060601" target="_blank">Bruce Metzger's Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Paleography</a> is great for learning how to read the ancient papyri! I had a heck of a time trying to find it though. I tried amazon.com, christianbook.com, Barnes and Noble. Everyone told me they could get it, but after waiting months they would say, "Sorry". However, I finally found it at a local Seminary Book Store.

Though it doesn't look like it, the picture of p52 I linked to is actually fairly readable once you know what to look for. Perhaps I can post a couple of small pictures with boxes around the "complete consecutive words".

Haran

CX

In several years of looking I am unable to find one so please let me know if you do.

Looks interesting. I'll put it on my list of "would-be-nices".

That would be great. I can get a lot of it, but I have trouble with some of the really fragmented bits.

I have no real strong objections to the Christology in GJn being earlier rather than later, certainly the Ebionites had what we might consider a high Christology with a strongly gnostic flavor yet there is considerable evidence that they may have been one of the earliest sects of Xianity. Even so it depends on what we mean by early. I think I'm really taking issue with Comfort saying that the concensus is that GJn dates to 80-85 C.E. Udo Schnelle on page 477 of his preeminent intro text says around 100 C.E. Most of the scholars I am aware of agree with Schnelle. As I see it the only reason to date it as early as 80 is because later than that causes problems for the traditional authorial attribution. Even so the tradition in the Johannine community could go back as early as the mid 80's I suppose, but I'd be hard pressed to know how one could really defend that position.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

Haran

Michael & CowboyX

I took a little time this evening to mark up some pictures of p52 for your enjoyment/amusement/what-have-you.

<a href="http://www.dreamwater.org/bccox/p52rvhlite.jpg" target="_blank">1. 2 instances of complete consecutive greek words.</a>

<a href="http://www.dreamwater.org/bccox/p52trace.jpg" target="_blank">2. I made the letters a little more pronounced in this picture.</a>

<a href="http://www.dreamwater.org/bccox/p52transc.jpg" target="_blank">3. In case you couldn't read 2 above, I transcribed the existing greek in this one.</a>

Sounds like the above links don't work (forgive me, I'm relatively new to this webpage stuff). If not, then you can find links to the pictures on my website at the bottom of the <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/index.html#BPM" target="_blank">"Biblical Papyri and other Manuscripts"</a> section. Hope that works.

I don't know what's up with the green background... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Enjoy,
Haran

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Haran

Also, on the dating of the book of John, the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310519403/qid=1014776337/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/103-8346869-8031000" target="_blank">Intro. to the NT by Carson, Moo, and Morris</a> gives a "tentative" date of A.D. 80-85. One good reason for this date is that if the "Johannine Epistles are concerned in part to combat an incipient form of Gnosticism, predicated in part on a Gnostic misunderstanding of the fourth gospel, then some time must be allowed between the publication of the gospel and the publication of the epistles of John. That tends to rule out a date in the nineties." (p.168)

This intro is written by relatively conservative scholars, but they are excellent scholars with good arguments. Their book presents liberal views as well and contains an awesome bibliography of current scholarly works on the issue.

P.S. - I hate when the page changes with my post. Don't miss my last post with the pictures... I worked hard on that!

Haran

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Pantera

Tried the links and got this

"You are not authorized to view this page

You might not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials you supplied."



[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Toto

Same here. You probably have to put a link on your home page ( <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/" target="_blank">http://dreamwater.org/bccox/</a> )

Haran

Sorry 'bout that...

I put the p52 links on my website at the bottom of the <a href="http://dreamwater.org/bccox/index.html#BPM" target="_blank">"Biblical Papyri and other Manuscripts"</a> section.

Maybe that will work better.

Thanks,
Haran

CX

Outstanding! Thank you. I guess I wasn't too far off. I'm saving this in my own files for future reference.