As almost every scholar who works with ancient manuscripts admits, the dating of manuscripts is extremely difficult when all one has is undated manuscripts for comparison. Nevertheless, the development of a timeline or trajectory is necessary. The evidence that I have analyzed above indicates that the order of writing of the manuscripts discussed above was as follows: the canonical Gospel of John, probably 70-90, which would ensure that there was enough time for it to be circulated, copied, and transmitted to Egypt, where it was then used and copied further; then P.Rylands Greek 457 around 100-120, although the absence of the nomina sacra, if they were introduced around 100, may possibly push the date even earlier; and then P.Egerton 2 copied sometime from the mid to late second cen- tury, perhaps around 170.
For more on P.Egerton 2, see http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Egerton_Papyrus_2
11 comments:
"transmitted to Egypt" - evidence or assumption?
Have you seen/read Lonnie Bell's study about the transmission of John's Gospel? https://brill.com/view/title/36174?lang=en
See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/20789025?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Porter's book is worth reading as well along with Nongbri's study.
To be clear, Porter is not being dogmatic about any of these claims, but rather being suggestive. He's saying that is his suggestions are correct, then such and such would follow. Furthermore, P. Egerton was found in Egypt.
The British Library website also states: "Possibly found at Oxyrhynchus: Bell and Skeat (1935), p. 7."
https://www.academia.edu/37493415/A_Possible_Forgery_in_Bodmer_II_P66_
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/the-date-of-p66-p-bodmer-ii-nongbris-new-argument/
http://csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P66
http://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-date-of-pbodmer-ii-p66.html
https://www.bible-history.com/maps/ancient-roads-in-israel.html
Via Maris
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xUavAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=65+CE+John+Robinson&source=bl&ots=ZMZqNBGTvd&sig=ACfU3U2imOvWHB16BQQKADXtivNlubxl7A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB8vGV0vzhAhUkQxUIHRYACLwQ6AEwCHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=65%20CE%20John%20Robinson&f=false
Speculated that GJohn could have been written in Alexandria. I disagree with using Philo to try and negate the possibility.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58821862.pdf
Overview
When studying this subject, three authors that must be read are D.A. Carson, Stanley Porter, and Paul Anderson. The journal article in the link was a good overview, but it was written in 2003. Porter's research is more recent and he provides an extended line of reasoning for why he favors dating GJohn between 70-90 CE.
I'm not impressed by the speculation that John was written in Alexandria. It's speculation, for one thing. However, I see the suggestion as unnecessary and it lacks appropriate explanatory power. Furthermore, what substantial evidence backs this idea?
One scholar who provides reasons against the Alexandria idea isC.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John, page 129.
I checked Raymond Brown's commentary for John, and he devotes a paragraph to the Alexandrian suggestion. Brown neither dismisses nor advocates the idea, but he issues a caution regarding it. See his Anchor Bible commentary.
As far as the Barrett arguments are concerned one must account for the preservation of the DSS and other locations outside of Egypt.
From Craig Keener's commentary on GJohn (page 143):
"Proposals as to the geographical location of the Fourth Gospel and its implied audience vary considerably. Some have even suggested that a major source of the Gospel, an Aramaic Signs Gospel, originated in Alexandria.28 Why an Aramaic work would have been composed in Alexandria rather than in Syro-Palestine,29 however, is hard to fathom, since Greek was the first language of Alexandria’s Jewish community.30 Others propose an Egyptian origin for the Gospel because of its isolation and the appearance of a Coptic loanword.31 Most of Egyptian Judaism was not sectarian (at least before 70), but the proposal of Egyptian provenance could explain why the work is not cited among writers from outside Egypt in the early second century. It could also explain the contemplative Christology, John’s prologue, and perhaps even feelings of rejection by the Judean elite. This thesis would probably contradict the Johannine tradition, but from the early second century we have little 'orthodox' tradition from Egypt, hence an explanation for the silence from which we might have to argue. Two other positions, however, offer stronger positive evidence."
Post a Comment