From: Jack Kilmon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Apr 25 2001 - 18:17:01 EDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lupia" <email@example.com>
To: "Biblical Greek" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:08 AM
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Original NT in Greek
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
In Response to Jack Kilmon:
Re: From: "Jack Kilmon" <email@example.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "Biblical Greek" <firstname.lastname@example.org> [Add to Address Book]
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Original NT in Greek?
> >I consider the Thiede/d'Ancona "theory" to be "National Enquirer"
> 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
> and Elvis (returned to earth by aliens) honeymooning secretly in the
> Bahamas. These papyri are not first century and not the autograph.
>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.
All that was done, John, in answer to Keith's question about these
fragments on the 23rd. This post was just an aside. For your benefit,
I agree with Prof Elliott and Bruce Metzger on the basis of the
palaeography and format.
>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).
Again, you come into this late and short of the original posts. I did not
that Thiede argues the Magdalen Papyri are the autograph but Thiede argues
that these fragments are pre-70 CE and "perhaps many years before" and
that Matthew was written pre-70 and this codex "could conceivably have
been read and handled by an eyewitness to the Crucifion." The rumor that
they are autograph material was inevitable if not intentional.
> >Roberts also published on P67 (Barcelona), 2 fragments containing
> >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
>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,
>57 where he lists publications by J. van Haelst, Le catalogue des Papyrus
>littéraires juifs et chrétiens (Paris, 1976) 146; and Colin Roberts & T.
>Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London, 1983) 40-41, 65-66.
All of whom give good reasons why Thiede is all wet on this issue
> Theide, on page
>68 follows the argument given by K. Aland citing two additional
>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
>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?
Besides Colin Roberts who knows these fragments intimately, I have examined
each myself. The letters on all three papyri are shaped and stroked
*identically!!* Roberts states that ALL THREE are part of the same codex
as stuffing for the binding of a late 3rd century Philo codex. Its true
that in 1965
Aland listed them all as part of the same codex but he never gave a reason
listing them separately afterward. For a complete history of this
see Comfort and Barrett Pgs 33-61.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:55 EDT