Subject: Re: Different dating systems

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:12:29 -0500

On 19 March, Stephen Carlson wrote:

>Second, although some parts of John seem very early, other parts, esp.
>ch. 21 appear to be written (shortly) after the death of the beloved
>disciple.  Perhaps John was originally published in two versions, a
>twenty chapter and a twenty-one chapter version, but the evidence of P5
>and P75 for this is unclear.  I'd be interested in hearing other's
>opinions on whether P5 and P75 reflect a twenty-chapter version of
>John.
>

Neither P5 nor P75 include John 21, but that tells us nothing, for both are
very fragmentary.  P5 does contain parts of chap. 20:  20:11-17, 19-20, and
22-25.  In P75 the fragmentary "snippets" of text go as far as John 15:7-8.
See Aland & Aland, _Text of the NT_.

The best way to see how far back in the tradition John 21 goes is to check
Patristic citations, and see who first quotes from John 21.  The tool to use
is the _Biblia Patristica_ (now 5 vols.)

There seems to be little doubt but that, on internal grounds, chap. 21 is
some sort of an "Appendix," tacked on after the death of the "beloved
disciple" (cf. 21:20-23).  Similarly, the shift in pronouns in 21:24 (first
person sing. to first person pl.) indicates the same.  This "revisionist"
tendency also intrudes into the gospel even earlier, at 2:18-22.  This
revisionism seems to indicate a later date for the final product, and/or a
revision of an earlier "edition" (if there was one).

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:57:59 -0500 (EST)

William L. Petersen wrote:
>>                              I'd be interested in hearing other's

I'm thinking of Comfort's argument that the arrangements of the codices
which contained P5 and P75 suggest a shorter, hence twenty-chapter, gospel.
Is his argument persuasive among text critics?

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 18:57:54 -0500 (EST)

>From what I know, Comfort stands alone and his theories are not very well 
received among any text-critical scholars.  I myself wrote a lengthy 
critical review of Comfort's theories which was published in _Faith and 
Mission_ about two years ago.  

Basically, Comfort's problem is his over-simplistic method of doing
textual criticism merely by taking the three oldest MSS of any portion of
scripture and allowing two out of three to decide the "autograph." 
Comfort's critique of N27 and his suggested "corrections" to that edition
are often laughable, even if one holds to the eclectic standpoint. 

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.

=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   <[email-masked]>
=========================================================================

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:17:29 -0500 (EST)

>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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:39:05 -0500 (EST)

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.

> [Comfort].  Comfort thinks (a) is unlikely, but either (b) or (c) is

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
=========================================================================

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 01:54:05 -0500 (EST)

Maurice Robinson wrote:
>the first place?
[...]
>                                                                   Seems 
>process.

My take on Comfort is that his goal is not to establish a 20-chapter
John but to support his Early Text theory.  If some of the early papyri
(e.g., P75) can be shown to come from the 20-chapter precursor that is
proposed by several Johannine scholars, then P75 would have a greater
claim to the readings of the autograph, thus strengthening his Early
Text theory.

Stephen Carlson