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

P52 and Schmidt

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    I was discussing on another group when John was written and the relevance of P52 and Schmidt s redating of this papyrus came up. Schmidt apparently dates P52
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I was discussing on another group when John was written  
      and the relevance of P52 and Schmidt's redating of this
      papyrus came up.
       
      Schmidt apparently dates P52 to around 170 CE in
      A. Schmidt, Zwei Anmerkungen zu P.Ryl.III 457, APF 35, 1989
       
      This appears to be a minority position but does anyone
      know either what were Schmidt's main grounds for redating
      and/or whether there has been any detailed criticism of
      Schmidt's position ?
       
      Andrew Criddle
       
       
    • tomwas@tiscali.se
      Hello Andrew, there was a discussion on the TC-list a few years ago, on the issue of dating P52, which should be available from the TC-list archives,
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 17, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Andrew,

        there was a discussion on the TC-list a few years ago, on the issue of dating
        P52, which should be available from the TC-list archives, http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl

        Unfortunately, however, things are not as they used to be, and authorization
        is requested for access to the archives, so maybe someone on this list have
        saved that thread and could share it with you.

        With kind regards

        Tommy Wasserman
        Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
        Lund University
        Sweden

        >-- Original Message --
        >To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        >From: "sarban" <sarban@...>
        >Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:46:14 +0100
        >Subject: [textualcriticism] P52 and Schmidt
        >Reply-To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >I was discussing on another group when John was written
        and the relevance of P52 and Schmidt's redating of this
        papyrus came up.

        Schmidt apparently dates P52 to around 170 CE in
        A. Schmidt, Zwei Anmerkungen zu P.Ryl.III 457, APF 35, 1989


        >This appears to be a minority position but does anyone
        know either what were Schmidt's main grounds for redating
        and/or whether there has been any detailed criticism of
        Schmidt's position ?

        Andrew Criddle
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... This is what I have: Stephen Carlson ... -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Weblog:
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 17, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          At 10:08 AM 9/17/2004 +0200, tomwas@... wrote:
          >there was a discussion on the TC-list a few years ago, on the issue of dating
          >P52, which should be available from the TC-list archives, http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl
          >
          >Unfortunately, however, things are not as they used to be, and authorization
          >is requested for access to the archives, so maybe someone on this list have
          >saved that thread and could share it with you.

          This is what I have:

          Stephen Carlson

          >From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <L.Hurtado@...>
          >Organization: Divinity
          >To: "TC-List" <tc-list@...>
          >Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:54:14 +0000
          >MIME-Version: 1.0
          >Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
          >
          >Subject: [tc-list] Re: Date of P52
          >Message-ID: <LISTMANAGER-516-5006-2003.01.13-05.54.53--scarlson#mindspring.com@...>
          >Priority: normal
          >In-reply-to: <LISTMANAGER-1365-4989-2003.01.11-21.03.40--L.Hurtado#ed.ac.uk@...>
          >X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
          >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-tc-list-516N@...>
          >Reply-To: "TC-List" <tc-list@...>
          >
          >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
          >
          >L. W. Hurtado
          >Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology
          >University of Edinburgh,
          >School of Divinity, New College
          >Mound Place
          >Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
          >Phone: (0)131-650-8920
          >Fax: (0)131-650-7952
          >E-mail: L.Hurtado@...

          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
        • Jack Kilmon
          Larry Hurtado wrote an excellent paper on P52 in the Tyndale Bulletin 54.1 (2003). I have a copy of it on pdf format and I do not believe Larry would mind my
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 17, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Larry Hurtado wrote an excellent paper on P52 in the Tyndale Bulletin 54.1
            (2003). I have a copy of it on pdf format and I do not believe Larry would
            mind my privately sharing it if any one is interested. My own take on P52
            as far as date is concerned is as a first or 2nd generation copy (within 20
            years) of the autograph from the time of Hadrian (117-138 CE) with some
            possibility of being even earlier.

            Jack Kilmon


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <tomwas@...>
            To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 3:08 AM
            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] P52 and Schmidt


            > Hello Andrew,
            >
            > there was a discussion on the TC-list a few years ago, on the issue of
            dating
            > P52, which should be available from the TC-list archives,
            http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl
            >
            > Unfortunately, however, things are not as they used to be, and
            authorization
            > is requested for access to the archives, so maybe someone on this list
            have
            > saved that thread and could share it with you.
            >
            > With kind regards
            >
            > Tommy Wasserman
            > Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
            > Lund University
            > Sweden
            >
            > >-- Original Message --
            > >To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
            > >From: "sarban" <sarban@...>
            > >Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:46:14 +0100
            > >Subject: [textualcriticism] P52 and Schmidt
            > >Reply-To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            > >
            > >
            > >I was discussing on another group when John was written
            > and the relevance of P52 and Schmidt's redating of this
            > papyrus came up.
            >
            > Schmidt apparently dates P52 to around 170 CE in
            > A. Schmidt, Zwei Anmerkungen zu P.Ryl.III 457, APF 35, 1989
            >
            >
            > >This appears to be a minority position but does anyone
            > know either what were Schmidt's main grounds for redating
            > and/or whether there has been any detailed criticism of
            > Schmidt's position ?
            >
            > Andrew Criddle
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • sarban
            ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 12:29 PM Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] P52 and Schmidt
            Message 5 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.