Wed Mar 20 22:41:55 1996

From majordom  Wed Mar 20 22:41:55 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA02298; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:41:55 +0500
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:39:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Different dating systems
In-Reply-To: <9603201517.AA26073@osf1.gmu.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1865
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:

> [Comfort] cites and argues against Martin & Kasser and Turner.

I for one would not argue very strongly against Turner on the point of 
reconstructing the original form of a codex.

> 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.

Why does Comfort so desperately want the early papyri to omit John 21 in 
the first place?  Even here I would trust Sanders first, Grenfell and 
Hunt second, and Comfort not at all, unless he can first demonstrate that 
John originally did end with chapter 20 (which I strongly doubt).  Seems 
to me like Comfort is trying to manufacture evidence to support his 
theory of the original form of John, and misusing manuscript data in the 
process.  If so, the flaw in his reasoning is that he is following 
circular argumentation to prove his point, and this he must do, since all 
other manuscript, versional, and patristic testimony is hostile to his own 
case.


=========================================================================
 Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.       Assoc. Prof. of Greek and New Testament
 Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary    Wake Forest, North Carolina
=========================================================================

Back