Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 01-10-2003, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Vorkosigan
I just popped in here for a second -- too beautiful here today to be working. And look who is back! Hello, Haran. Couldn't resist saying hello. Nice to see you again.

Thanks, Michael. I'm a glutton...

Quote:

Vorkosigan:
In 1987 p52 that was redated to 175. However, I suspect you are right about that being only a quarter century from its original.

Redated to 175 in 1987? I can understand someone saying 150 AD and possibly 175 on the upper end because paleographers tend to give 25 - 50 years on either side of their dating. However, most sources that I have seen (dated since 1987) say (I believe) either circa 125 AD or in the first half/quarter of the second century.

See the following:

2001 The Text of the earliest NT Greek MSS - Comfort and Barrett
1999 The Journey from Texts to Translations - Paul D. Wegner
1998 UBS 4 Greek NT
1995 Intro. to NT Textual Criticism - J. Harold Greenlee
1994 NT Textual Criticism - David Alan Black
1992 The Text of the NT - Bruce Metzger
1989 The Text of the NT - Kurt and Barbara Aland

Quote:

The footnote on p 477 of Schnelle's History and Theology discusses the dating issue and p52. The date of 125 must be "given with some doubt" and 150 is preferable (and that one through Schnelle's gritted teeth). It's pretty clear the later date is preferable.

I can see doubt in either direction. Comfort and Barrett state the following (see their work referenced above):

Quote:

Comfort and Barrett:

...both P.Oxy.2533 and P52 can safely be dated to AD 100-125. However, its comparability to manuscripts of an even earlier period (especially P. Berol. 6845), pushes the date closer to AD 100, plus or minus a few years. This is extremely remarkable, especially if we accept the consensus dating for the composition of the Fourth Gospel: AD 80-85. This would mean that P52 may be only twenty years removed from the original.

I think circa 125 is a safe date. Comfort and Barrett have good evidence to back up their claim, but they may be too conservative.

Haran · 01-10-2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
But the dating of P52 is a more serious argument that requires consideration.

If you notice the names that Metzger mentions as supporting the first half of the second century (i.e. 100AD - 150AD), they are some of the best scholars of their time. "Scholarly consensus" doesn't mean all, though. There are definitely fringe scholarly opinions.

For other books supporting a date of circa 125, see those I listed in my previous post.

Quote:

Vinnie:
I think I remember CX saying in another thread that 7 NT works do not even have any MSS attestation until the third or fourth century.

Haran:
If one discounts the dating of P52 and P90... I'm sure some do.

Vinnie:
I'm not sure I follow you here?

I mean, the 1998 UBS 4 Greek NT lists both P52 and P90 as second century, not third or fourth. So, depending on whether a person accepts these dates, there is at least some MS attestation before the third/fourth centuries.

Vinnie · 01-10-2003, 09:34 PM

Quote:

that we may *possibly* have (in P52) a first or second copy of the original.

One more thing. If John, as many scholars argue, was in fact redacted, then P52 is certainly ruled out as a fragment of a first copy of the original. To me it seems that at best we have a very early fragment of 5 verses from the Gospel of John.

Also, what is P52? Pardon my ignorance here but I have read its about the size of an index card and has 5 verses of John. Now is P52 considered to be a fragment of what was once a whole copy of John? Metzger says it contains verses 18:31-33 and 37-38.

Where are the other three verses if its part of a copy? Are they smudged? Do the dimensions of the fragment allow room for those three verses? i know little about it. On the opposite end of the spectrum it seems odd to me on a prima facie level for anyone to write down just those verses but I could be off on either side.

So this might not be a fragment of an early copy of John but just a fragment containing part of John or is it a fragment of an early copy of John?

Vinnie

Vinnie · 01-10-2003, 09:53 PM

Nevermind, I found a picture and explanation:

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm

Quote:

I mean, the 1998 UBS 4 Greek NT lists both P52 and P90 as second century, not third or fourth. So, depending on whether a person accepts these dates, there is at least some MS attestation before the third/fourth centuries.

I retrieved the actual comment by CX. It was fourth century, not third. Its below in bold::

Quote:

There are on the order of 5600 or so Greek MSS of the NT. None is complete prior to the 4th century. Naturally we do not have the autograph for any text in the NT. There are only roughly 45 or so MSS prior to Aleph (AKA Codex Sinaiticus) in the 4th century. There are no MSS from the 1st century. There are roughly 3-6 extremely fragmentary MSS in the 2nd century. The earliest is P52 which contains somewhere around 33 words of GJn. 7 books of the NT have no attestation prior to the 4th century.7 books of the NT have no attestation prior to the 4th century.

Wouldn't this mean that the other 20 do? That is why I wasn't following you and why I still don't follow you.

Haran · 01-10-2003, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Vinnie:
Also, what is P52? Pardon my ignorance here but I have read its about the size of an index card and has 5 verses of John. Now is P52 considered to be a fragment of what was once a whole copy of John?

Yes. It is small, but not necessarily insignificant. One can tell that this part of the passion narrative from John was very similar to what we have today.

Quote:

Vinnie:
Where are the other three verses if its part of a copy? Are they smudged? Do the dimensions of the fragment allow room for those three verses?

It part of a whole. The original document was not very big, so the verses are on different sides of the piece of papyrus.

Maybe this will help. This is from my website. This is a really ugly picture of P52 (front and back) that I marked up with the Greek letters (also darkened the original script):

http://dreamwater.org/bccox/p52transc.jpg

Here is my page describing it:

http://dreamwater.org/bccox/P52trans.html

Quote:

So this might not be a fragment of an early copy of John but just a fragment containing part of John or is it a fragment of an early copy of John?

It could be from the whole MS of John, only the passion story, or only a part of the passion story. It is too hard to tell. If I were a bettin' man, I'd say it was probably at least from a passion narrative and probably also from a whole copy of John.

Haran · 01-10-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Wouldn't this mean that the other 20 do? That is why I wasn't following you and why I still don't follow you.

Oh, no problem. I misread... Sorry.

beyelzu · 01-10-2003, 09:59 PM

how long is p52. someone described it as a fragment.

Vinnie · 01-10-2003, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
how long is p52. someone described it as a fragment.

Pieces of 5 verses of chapter 18 of John. I linked to a picture of it up above. And Haran linked to a picture of it as well.

Vinnie · 01-10-2003, 10:21 PM

Haran, your first link doesn't work but I was able to get to the picture through the xecond page on your site though through cpmparing the links they seemed to be the same!

Quote:

Yes. It is small, but not necessarily insignificant. One can tell that this part of the passion narrative from John was very similar to what we have today.

I agree that it is not insignificant but in all honesty I think it only tells us a little bit. So I think its importance is often overstated but I could be wrong.

Quote:

It could be from the whole MS of John, only the passion story, or only a part of the passion story. It is too hard to tell. If I were a bettin' man, I'd say it was probably at least from a passion narrative and probably also from a whole copy of John.

Thanks for the info.

What do you think of Metger's statement on page 201 of TotNT:

Quote:

"The number of deliberate alterations made in the interests of doctrine is difficult to assess, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius, and many other Church Fathers accused the heretics of corrupting the Scriptures in order to have support for their special views [1]. In the mid-second century Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus. Tatian's HJrmony of the Gospels contains several textual alteration which lent support to ascetic or encratite views.

[1] Metzger footnotes that these changes indicate that the originals (or many of them) were not available at this time as an appeal to them would probably have been made.

This seems consistent with this citation from Raymond Brown (Intro to the NT p.51)

Quote:

'Many differences among the textual families visible in the great uncial codices of the 4th and 5th centuries existed already ca. 200 as we see from the papri and early translations. How could so many differences arise within a hundred years after the original books were written? The answer may lie in the attitude of the copyists toward the NT books being copied. These were holy books because of their content and origins, but there was no slavish devotion to their exact wording. They were meant to be commented on and interpreted, and some of that could be included in the text. Later when more fixed ideas of the canon and inspiration shaped the mind-set, attention began to center on keeping the exact wording. "

Again, I'm not saying or trying to argue that I consider the textual veracity of the NT as highly suspect or anything like that. But a sober view of the facts does indicate that a lot of the more conservative Christians tend to overstate their case here.

Vinnie

Haran · 01-11-2003, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Again, I'm not saying or trying to argue that I consider the textual veracity of the NT as highly suspect or anything like that. But a sober view of the facts does indicate that a lot of the more conservative Christians tend to overstate their case here.

I'm not sure I understand where you are going with all this, Vinnie... I tend to agree with the Metzger and Brown quotes.

Some conservative Christians tend to overstate their case. Not all of them. Some liberals tend to overstate their case. Not all of them. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic of the thread, unless you are implying that I am overstating my case...

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

01-10-2003, 09:59 PM	#17
beyelzu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist Posts: 2,869	how long is p52. someone described it as a fragment.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.