Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] P52 and Schmidt

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 12:29 PM Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] P52 and Schmidt
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 12:29 PM
      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] P52 and Schmidt


      This is what I have:

      Stephen Carlson

      <SNIP>
      >
      >Yes, the early 2nd cent dating of P52 posited by C. H. Roberts,
      >and echoed by Deissmann, Wilckens and most others
      >subsequently, was challenged in recent years in a very short study
      >proposed a date of 170+/- 25 yrs:
      >Schmidt, Andreas. "Zwei Anmerkungen zu P.Ryl III." Archiv für
      >Papyrusforschung 35 (1989): 11-2.
      >The argument is entirely palaeographical.  Schmidt's somewhat later
      >dating is somewhat supported by a similar later dating of the Egerton
      >"Unknown Gospel" papyrus:
      >Gronewald, Michael. "Unbekanntes Evangelium oder
      >Evangelienharmonie (Fragment aus dem 'Evangelium Egerton')." In
      >Kölner Papyri (P. Köln), Vol. VI, 136-45. Cologne: Rheinisch-
      >Westfälischen Akademischer Wissenschaften unter Universität Köln,
      >1987; and see also Lührmann, Dieter. "Das neue Fragment des P Egerton
      >2 (P Köln 255)." In The Four Gospels 1992:  Festschrift Frans Neirynck,
      >eds. F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden,
      >3:2239-55. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1992.
      >Roberts' date of P52 was established *in relation to the mid-2nd cent
      >dating then proposed for Egerton*, and each is thought of as the other's
      >closest Christian ms in palaeographical terms.  So, if Egerton is "re-
      >moored" downstream chronologically, P52 may have to move too!  In
      >private correspondence, by J. D. Thomas and T. C. Skeat have indicated
      >that they incline toward the later dating for Egerton.
      >Larry Hurtado
      >
      Thanks for that.
      IIUC the redating of the Egerton papyrus is
      based on late features in Koln papyrus 608
      which was recently (1987) shown to be from the
      same manuscript. 
       
      On the one hand this shows the fragility of
      paleography based on small amounts of text,
      which is very relevant to texts ilke P52, but it
      may be more a case of new evidence showing
      Egerton and P52 to be less alike than previously
      thought, than a case for redating P52.
       
      Andrew Criddle
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.