• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Oldest NT Papyri

  • Thread starter angellous_evangellous
  • Start date
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I was doing some research this morning and I found a cool pic of the oldest NT papryi:
hand.jpg


Here's another closeup:
papyrus-p52.jpg
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Scuba Pete

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
That was indeed a WAY COOL find.

Then there is the graffiti in the Roman prison that has now been dated to the second century. However, it has long been a pet theory (the Thomas theory), that even the physical presense of Jesus would not sway a skeptic bent on disbelieving. :D
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
NetDoc said:
That was indeed a WAY COOL find.

Then there is the graffiti in the Roman prison that has now been dated to the second century. However, it has long been a pet theory (the Thomas theory), that even the physical presense of Jesus would not sway a skeptic bent on disbelieving. :D
Click to expand...

Well, Jesus was crucified...
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
It really is incredible that the museum allowed someone to hold the papyrus in an ungloved hand!
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
No*s said:
Wow, that is incredible Nate.

*saves images*
Click to expand...

It's amazingly readable, isn't it?

EDIT: Can you believe the date?! 100-125 is contemporary with the autographs.
 
No*s

No*s

Captain Obvious
angellous_evangellous said:
It's amazingly readable, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. I am quite pleased that it uses an alphabet familiar to me :). Greek can look pretty funky in some ancient scripts.
 
No*s

No*s

Captain Obvious
I don't know if we'll ever find one younger. That's simply overwhelmingly young.
 
No*s

No*s

Captain Obvious
These are really neat images. Dangit Nate, you're resuscitating my desire to study paleography!

As an aside, have you ever looked at Latter Roman era icons? Some of those abbreviations can be fuuuun to work out :D
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
No*s said:
These are really neat images. Dangit Nate, you're resuscitating my desire to study paleography!

As an aside, have you ever looked at Latter Roman era icons? Some of those abbreviations can be fuuuun to work out :D
Click to expand...

Yes. I studied Rome in the first three centuries CE last semester. We looked at a good amount of 'inscriptiones'.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
BTW, can you read the top of the pic in post #10?
 
No*s

No*s

Captain Obvious
angellous_evangellous said:
Yes. I studied Rome in the first three centuries CE last semester. We looked at a good amount of 'inscriptiones'.
Click to expand...

I envy you there. I want to get a text with some of those historical inscriptions (or photocopies lol).

angellous_evangellous said:
BTW, can you read the top of the pic in post #10?
Click to expand...

Some of it, but in all honesty, not all of it. For instance, the first word at the top certainly appears to be "[O]YRANON," but I can't be certain on some of the letters. I can always make out "KAI" clearly, though, :biglaugh:.
 
No*s

No*s

Captain Obvious
Here's a good example. This is a pain in the backside to read (and I can't read some of it ATM, but that will change now lol). I have a lot of fun with some of these.

athos11.gif
]​

This is an icon of Gethsemane.
 
No*s

No*s

Captain Obvious
angellous_evangellous said:
What part troubles you?
Click to expand...

It's a general thing. Remember when I explained how I have trouble reading sometimes? Well, it's aggrevated with handwriting, and this is handwriting on a foreign document without any of the usual markers I've trained myself for on the language. Maybe if I spent more time with them, I could get better at it, but right now, I simply have trouble reading it :banghead3.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Jayhawker Soule said:
There is no consensus on that early date.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the early date of P 52 or the early date of the autographs of John?

I have not found any protests regarding the date of P 52. There is consensus among C. H. Roberts, Frederic Kenyon, H. I. Bell, Adolf Deissmann, and W. P. Hatch. I have found the arguments very convincing for the early date of the papyrus. P52 shows critical similarities to many other early papyri: P. Fayum 110 (94 CE); the Egerton Gospel (130-50 CE); P. Oslo 22 (127 CE); P. London 278 (81-96 CE); and P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca 100 CE). The closest papyrus is P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca 100 CE) - even P. Berol. 6845 has handwriting that parallels other first century papyri, but the editors dated it second century because of its appearance. Therefore, the editors of the most recent publication of P52 have dated it closer to 100 CE (Comfort, The Text of the Earliest Greek NT MSS, 2001).

The dating of P52 has been used to date the Gospel of John. Bultmann, for example, wrote an influencial commentary on John. He believed that John was known in Egypt by 100 CE because of P52. This could possibly push the dating of the Gospel back to 85CE.

However, P52 by no means dictates an early date for the authorship of John. It simply means that some of the traditions in John were widely known at an early date. We can argue, with the majority of scholars, that the writing, editing, and compiling of John continued well into the fourth century.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
angellous_evangellous said:
Do you mean the early date of P 52 or the early date of the autographs of John?

I have not found any protests regarding the date of P 52. There is consensus among C. H. Roberts, Frederic Kenyon, H. I. Bell, Adolf Deissmann, and W. P. Hatch. I have found the arguments very convincing for the early date of the papyrus. P52 shows critical similarities to many other early papyri: P. Fayum 110 (94 CE); the Egerton Gospel (130-50 CE); P. Oslo 22 (127 CE); P. London 278 (81-96 CE); and P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca 100 CE). The closest papyrus is P. Berolinenses 6845 (ca 100 CE) - even P. Berol. 6845 has handwriting that parallels other first century papyri, but the editors dated it second century because of its appearance. Therefore, the editors of the most recent publication of P52 have dated it closer to 100 CE (Comfort, The Text of the Earliest Greek NT MSS, 2001).

The dating of P52 has been used to date the Gospel of John. Bultmann, for example, wrote an influencial commentary on John. He believed that John was known in Egypt by 100 CE because of P52. This could possibly push the dating of the Gospel back to 85CE.

However, P52 by no means dictates an early date for the authorship of John. It simply means that some of the traditions in John were widely known at an early date. We can argue, with the majority of scholars, that the writing, editing, and compiling of John continued well into the fourth century.
Click to expand...

I did overlook the wikipedia article on P52, which has a protest by Schnelle, whom I respect and admire. An argument against the early dating 100-125 has to protest/criticize the dating of papyri in general. I don't think that Schnelle is convincing at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top