[b-greek] Re: Original NT in Greek

From: John Lupia (jlupia2@excite.com)
Date: Wed Apr 25 2001 - 13:08:00 EDT

John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

In Response to Jack Kilmon:

Re: From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@historian.net> [Add to Address Book]
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu> [Add to Address Book]
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Original NT in Greek?

> >I consider the Thiede/d'Ancona "theory" to be "National Enquirer"
> >scholarship.

> I presume 'National Enquirer' is like the British 'Sunday Sport'
> newspaper. So what I found was actually true but not considered to be
> reliable? (Or is it?)

> The National Enquirer is a tabloid that will run a story about Queen
> Elizabeth
> and Elvis (returned to earth by aliens) honeymooning secretly in the
> Bahamas.  These papyri are not first century and not the autograph.

Dr. Kilmon:

This is not a scholarly comment. I understand that this List is for
scholarly discussions. If you are inclined to not assign a first century
date to P. Magadalene Grk 17 (P64) ; P. Barc. inv. 1 (P67) then you might
wish to give scholary rationale in the form of presenting factual data, and
clarifying your conclusions by defining terms and methods, or simply by
saying you concur with so and so and state your reasons why you do. As for
your characterization that Theide is arguing that P64/67 are the original
autograph I think you might wish to reread the book. The only assertion
Theide ever makes is that he thinks these frags. are the earliest extant
specimens of a codex (see pages 30, and 53).

You said:
> >Roberts also published on P67 (Barcelona), 2 fragments containing
> >of
> >Mt 3 and 5 from the same scribe and codex. Another portion of this same
> >codex is P4 in
> >Paris, also obtained in Luxor.

This is a rather unsubstantiated statement. P4 contains portions of Lc 1-6.
Theide does discuss P4's candidacy for being part of this codex, first
proposed by Peter Weigandt, on page 67ff. This proposal was taken up by K.
Aland "Neutestamentliche Papyri II," in NTS 12 (1965/66) 193-195. For
further articles that discuss this see Theide's bibliography on page 177, n.
57 where he lists publications by J. van Haelst, Le catalogue des Papyrus
littéraires juifs et chrétiens (Paris, 1976) 146; and Colin Roberts & T. C.
Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London, 1983) 40-41, 65-66. Theide, on page
68 follows the argument given by K. Aland citing two additional publications
by Aland, where in the second Aland completely abandoned support for his
original view and assigns a later date to P4. This second citation, by the
way, is the famous Der Text des NT (Stutgart, 2nd ed, 1981, repr. in
English 1989) The only papyri that have been paired together with any degree
of certainty and concensus among papyrologists and the so-called NT papyri
researchers are: P64/67 and a second group with texts on Acts P33/58. Do
you have supporting evidence to show that P4 should still be considered as
part of the P64/67 group which you have already declared?

Peace in Christ,

Send a cool gift with your E-Card

B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:55 EDT