Subject: tc-list Fwd: POxy655 again

From: "Bruce Prior" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:08:49 PDT

>From: "Craig A. Evans" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Bruce Prior" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: POxy655 again
>
>31 August 1999
>
>Bruce:
>
>I heard Jim Robinson's presentation in Helsinki/Lahti, at the 1999
>International SBL meeting in July. He discussed this alleged original
>reading, preserved in POxy655 and apparently attested in the original form
>of Codex Sinaiticus. He sees it as further evidence of a primitive cluster
>of early Q tradition. POxy655 attests, Robinson believes, a "scribal error"
>in Q, which has now been carried over into Matthew and Luke. The original
>reading of Sinaiticus, so Robinson's proposal goes, harks back to the
>original form of the saying, later corrupted in the copies of Q used by the
>Matthean and Lukan evangelists.
>
>I have at least four problems with Robinson's published studies (which he
>mentions in the email and which are duly noted in the footnotes of the 1999
>HTR article): (1) Not one of the key letters for the proposed "they do not
>card" is actual visible in POxy655. Therefore, it is an overstatement to
>claim that this reading is attested by this papyrus. The reading is
>certainly possible, but it is far from certain. (2) Robinson implies that
>scholars have been irresponsible in neglecting POxy655's important
>contribution to the question of the original reading of Q. I don't think
>so; several studies have appeared, beginning with Bartlet's 1905 study
>(which Robinson refers to, almost dismissively) and including studies by
>Robert Kraft, Joseph Fitzmyer, and others. (3) Robinson's HTR article
>leaves one with the impression that T.C. Skeat's ultra-violet study of the
>variants (and particularly erasures) of Sinaiticus is recent news. It is
>not; Skeat published his findings in 1938. (4) Finally, in my opinion
>Robinson makes a great deal of weight rest on a reading that is in fact not
>clearly attested. A whole series of conclusions are drawn from what might
>not actually be the reading of POxy655. In the end, Robinson could be
>correct on all points: that POxy655 does support "they do not card," that
>Sinaiticus does attest this reading, that it is the original reading of Q
>later corrupted in the editions utilized by Matthew and Luke, and that this
>is further evidence of the existence of a written Q, which also contains
>primitve clusters of material. However, I think it is important that
>readers, especially nonexperts, realize just how tenuous this whole line of
>reasoning is. Robinson speaks with more confidence and assurance than the
>ambiguous and fragmentary evidence warrants.
>
>One last point, Robinson's reference to "right wing charlatans," who from
>time to time argue for a first-century date of NT papyri, is unkind and
>discourteous. He is of course referring to Carsten Peter Thiede who has
>argued that P64 (the Magdalene Papyrus) dates to 70 AD (and he may also
>have in mind Jose O'Callahan who argued similar with reference to 7Q5 as a
>fragment of Mark). Whether one agrees with Thiede or not (and I don't), I
>don't think that makes him a charlatan.
>
>I have begun writing an article covering some of these points. I should
>finish it in a few weeks. Where I submit it I have not decided yet.
>
>If you want to circulate this note, you have my permission.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Craig A. Evans, Director
>Graduate Program in Biblical Studies
>Trinity Western University
>Langley, British Columbia
>
>____________________________
>
>Craig A. Evans, Director
>Graduate Program in Biblical Studies
>Trinity Western University
>Langley, British Columbia
>
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com