Wed Mar 20 10:53:12 1996

From majordom  Wed Mar 20 10:53:12 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA28265; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:53:12 +0500
Message-Id: <9603201517.AA26073@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Different dating systems
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:17:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Stephen C Carlson" 
In-Reply-To:  from "Maurice Robinson" at Mar 19, 96 06:57:54 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2341      
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status: 

Maurice Robinson wrote:
>How by any stretch of imagination the arrangement of the codices which
>contained P75 or P5 would indicate a 20-chapter version of John when the
>endings of both MSS are not extant, I do not know.  I suppose Comfort is 
>arguing that John preceded Luke in those codices, and that the extant 
>page numbers on the MSS when calculated by average line length and 
>average lines per page would somehow indicate the omission of Jn.21.  If 
>so, it seems strange that no other scholar ever seems to have urged this, 
>including Martini in his monograph on P75 and B.

This is his basic argument for P75:  He notes that there are about
26,500 characters which precede Lk5:37, but the text that follows Jn13:10,
comprising 29,300 characters for the twenty chapter version, and 32,300
for the twenty-one chapter version, would have to fit on the same number
of sheets.  He deals with the issue of the scribe's handwriting getting
smaller, but I don't pretend to understand the subject matter well enough
to evaluate it.  He cites and argues against Martin & Kasser and Turner.

His argument for P5 relies on the fact that POxy 208 is a leaf folded in
half and includes on one folio Jn1:23-31 (recto) and 1:33-41 (verso), and
Jn20:11-17 (v) and 20:19-20,22-25 (r) on the other.  Although two pages
(one more leaf) are needed for the beginning of John to 1:22, the 21-
chapter version would require 4+ more pages, or two leafs.  This means
that P5 either: (a) intentionally started with two blank pages but for
the title [Grenfell & Hunt], (b) was added an extra leaf after running
out of room [Sanders], or (c) never had chapter 21 in the first place
[Comfort].  Comfort thinks (a) is unlikely, but either (b) or (c) is
possible.

My source is Philip Wesley Comfort, THE QUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL NEW
TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992).

To this amateur these arguments have some plausibility, but I would
really like to get a second opinion.  Is there a flaw in his reasoning
or is his evidence simply insufficient (though intriguing) for a strong
conclusion?

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35

Back