Oldest NT Papyri (Jesus, crucified, Roman)

[No*s]

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

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by No*s

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

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

[angellous_evangellous]

BTW, can you read the top of the pic in post #10?

[No*s]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

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

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

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

BTW, can you read the top of the pic in post #10?

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, .

[No*s]

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.

]

This is an icon of Gethsemane.

[angellous_evangellous]

What part troubles you?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

EDIT: Can you believe the date?! 100-125 is contemporary with the autographs.

There is no consensus on that early date.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

What part troubles you?

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 .

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

There is no consensus on that early date.

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.