Subject: open or closed

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:01:22 -0400 (EDT)

The current discussion is fascinating.  Both sides of the issue are clearly
and professionally presenting their views.  If this can be done in regards
to the very essence of the list, why can it not be done on textual issues?
I must say that I agree with Larry H.  Colloquiums require expertise.  I
would further suggest that a minimum guideline for active participation on
the list should be knowledge of both Hebrew and Greek.
Further, perhaps those who are qualified can speak openly while those who
have particular questions which are appropriate for a beginner or novice in
the field should be encouraged to write privately to a particular scholar
who participates on the list.
In this way the list is both open and closed.  Open for public discussion
concerning advanced issues while closed to peripheral or novice questions.
If someone were unsure about the appropriatness of a topic or question for
public consumption, perhaps they could write Jimmy or Larry or Bart or
another luminary for private guidance.
Just some suggestions.

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology

[email-masked]

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 21:53:01 -0700 (PDT)

Having gotten farther along in Metzger's textbook, and with N-A 27 in hand
now, it seems to me that the manuscript dating evidence supports the
church-father dating evidence to indicate that the Gospel autographs
originated relatively late, like around 120-130.  In the rough
chronological list below, I've had to mix together the mss, the church
fathers and their mention of various Gospels, and had to omit the Gnostic
gospels, Gospel of Thomas, and some church fathers.  But have I omitted
any early ms of importance to tc, or misdated any, allowing an uncertainty
of a half century or so? 

The item marked with ? is one that Ulrich and I discussed some.  If it 
is located where I place it below, I see greatest consistency between 
the ms evidence and the church-father evidence.
  -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
Year   Estimated Placement of Witnesses to Gospels/Acts 

001

       *Ur-marcus/"Peter's Memoirs" (per Clem.of A., Tertullian, Papias)

101
 ?     (Matthew, Mark -- Presbyter John), G.Hebrews
       Papias, Marcion, Polycarp, Justin, 2 Clement, G.Naz., P52, P90
       Diatessaron (Tatian), Didache, G.Ebion., G.Egypt., Ltr. to Flora
       Apollinarus, Athanag., Protoev. of James, Theophilus, Irenaeus
201    Clem. of Alex., Tertullian, P64, P66, 0189
                |P1, P4, P5, P22, P28,
       Origen,  |P29, P39, P45, P48,
                |P53, P69, P70, P75, 
                |P80, P91, P95
301    P7, P37, P38, P77, 0171
       Eusebius               |P6, P8, P25,
       Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, |P35, P62, P71, 
       Ephraem Syrus          |P88, 058, 0231
       Ambrosiaster, Monarchian Prologues        |P19, P21, P50,
401    Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, W (Freer), |P57, P82, P85,
                                                 |P93, 057, 059, 0181
       
*Does not refer to a Gospel itself, but is clearly related in some way 
 to the later formation of the Gospel of Mark

Additional Note: Ignatius is not included, because his verses that look
like allusions to Matthew, if not due to oral tradition, could just as
well be due to the writer of Matthew having used Ignatius rather than vice
versa.  In that case, the most likely candidate to have been that writer
seems to be Burrhus, Ignatius's scribe on his journey towards Rome.

Jim Deardorff

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:04:15 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]> wrote:

>originated relatively late, like around 120-130.

Since this is exactly the sort of post the current "alternatives"
post is designed to suppress, I won't answer at length. But two
comments:

1. The evidence of the manuscripts, fathers, etc. does not
   *indicate* such a late date; it merely fails to disprove the
   possibility. Manuscripts of a literary work are rarely contemporary
   with it. Consider that the earliest manuscript of Herodotus
   comes from *fifteen hundred years* after it was written....

2. Our earliest manuscript of John is P52, now dated c. 125.
   On this argument, it would have to be the autograph. Which
   is hardly likely, considering that it was found in Egypt....

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 10:19:56 -0700 (PDT)

I'm trying to learn more about this evidence, the paleography behind it,
and the conclusions stemming from it.  An article that gets referenced on
this is Kurt Aland's 1986 contribution in _Studien zum Text und zur
Ethik..._, which I'm trying to acquire.  Meanwhile, I've noticed that in
his (translated) 1989 book, The Text of the New Testament_, he states in
different spots that P52 was written "ca 125", "in the period around A.D.
125," and "about A.D. 125" twice.  

But then in still another spot, he wrote, "The critical significance of
P52... lies in the date of 'about 125' assigned to it by leading
papyrologists.  Although 'about 125' allows for a leeway of about
twenty-five years on either side, the consensus has come in recent years
to regard 125 as representing the later limit, so that P52 must have been
copied very soon after the Gospel of John was itself written in the early
90s A.D.."  I gather that this is the consensus Robert Waltz referred to a
few days ago in expressing the opinion that P52 could have been written no
later than 125.  

Does someone on the list know if there is some matter of substance that 
argues for "no later than 125" instead of "between about A.D. 100 and 150?
The argument of silence suggests that K. Aland didn't know of such.

Jim Deardorff

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:33:46 -0500 (CDT)

>few days ago in expressing the opinion that P52 could have been written no

Please, don't quote *me* as making any sort of authoritative statements
about the dates of manuscripts. I am not a paleographer, and I am not
in a position to speak of "consensus." (If I used the word, I am
sorry.) It *is* true that every reference I have ever seen dates P52
to the second century, and usually to the first half of that century.
Most seem now to quote Aland's date of c. 125.

Personally (and this is only personal opinion), I don't think one
can date anything as small as P52 with an accuracy of +/- 25 years.
However, the fact that we have so *many* early papyri of John
(not just P52, but also P66 and many shorter fragments) are extremely
strong evidence that that book is early.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:28:26 -0500

> The argument of silence suggests that K. Aland didn't know of such.

Jim:

    It was Adolf Deissmann who was convinced that P52 dated within the
reign of Hadrian (117-138) with a probability that it could date to
Trajan
(98-117).  The foremost palaeographers of this time lined up with
Diessmann and Roberts (who found the scrap at the Rylands Library.)
I am not sure what palaeographic parameters contributed to this dating
but the information on this should be in Deissmann, A. "Ein
Evangelienblatt
aus den Tagen Hadrians" in Deutsche allgemeine Zietung 564 (3 Dec 1955).

Jack

--
D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
   Jack Kilmon ([email-masked])

 http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:39:03 -0700 (PDT)

> aus den Tagen Hadrians" in Deutsche allgemeine Zietung 564 (3 Dec 1955).

Thanks very much for the information, Jack, which I greatly appreciate.

I can understand that a dating estimate of this nature has to be somewhat
vague, as one never knows if some particular older scribe, for instance,
may have continued to use an older style of writing after the newer style
became popular.  Or if sacred literature was sometimes penned in an
outdated style so as to appear more venerable. 

Jim Deardorff

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:26:48 -0500

> outdated style so as to appear more venerable.

    I would expect this in Hebrew texts such as the DSS Leviticus
Scroll(11D1) or the use of Palaeohebrew by the Zealots but I am not so
sure
about Greek.  The style of P52 seems a tad running-handish compared to
P46 or P75.  The interesting thing about P52, however, is it is a
fragment
of a codex which must make it the earliest, or one of the earliest
known.

    There is a gif of my reproduction of P52 on my web page if you care
to
take a peek at the style.  Just click on P52 in the left frame.  It may
be that
the codex is a product of the desire of Christians to collate gospels
and the
letters of Paul in one form.  There is a train of thought that this took
place
in Ephesus just around the turn of the 2nd century and the pseudopauline

Ephesians was a revised Colossians that acted as a cover letter for this

collation.  Also significant is that P52 was found in Egypt which is
kind of a
"far piece" from Asia Minor.

    Of course, there is always the possibility that P52 is not a
fragment of GJohn
but of another gospel that used the same pericopae.

Jack