Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Revision history

Beza 1598 at 13:25, 8 March 2016

Beza 1598 — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:25:20 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 8 March 2016
Line 130:		Line 130:
	[[Category:Early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament]]		[[Category:Early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament]]
	[[Category:Gospel of John]]		[[Category:Gospel of John]]
		+
		+	{{Donate}}

Nick: /* External links */

Nick — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:34:14 GMT

External links

←Older revision		Revision as of 07:34, 27 December 2012
Line 122:		Line 122:
	* Robert B. Waltz. [http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html#P52 'NT Manuscripts: Papyri, Papyri [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>.']		* Robert B. Waltz. [http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html#P52 'NT Manuscripts: Papyri, Papyri [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>.']
	* [http://digilander.libero.it/Frances.or/ManoscrittiNT/P52.htm Papiro Papyrus P52 (a summary of the paleographic evidence, in Italian); from ''Origini del Cristianesimo'']		* [http://digilander.libero.it/Frances.or/ManoscrittiNT/P52.htm Papiro Papyrus P52 (a summary of the paleographic evidence, in Italian); from ''Origini del Cristianesimo'']
		+	* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus.52.html bible-researcher.com on Papyrus P52]

	{{DEFAULTSORT:Papyrus 0052}}		{{DEFAULTSORT:Papyrus 0052}}

Nick: /* Notes */

Nick — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:31:04 GMT

Notes

←Older revision		Revision as of 11:31, 13 August 2012
Line 92:		Line 92:

	==Notes==		==Notes==
		+	* 1. Aland, Kurt; Barbara Aland; Erroll F. Rhodes (trans.) (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-8028-4098-1.; Kurt und Barbara Aland, Der Text des Neuen Testaments. Einführung in die wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben sowie in Theorie und Praxis der modernen Textkritik. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1989, S. 109. ISBN 3-438-06011-6
		+	* 2. See 7Q5 for an alternative candidate.
		+	* 3. The papyrus may have come surreptitiously from Oxyrhyncus.
		+	* 4. Roberts, “An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library XX, 1936:45-55.
		+	* 5. For the date of the text, see Gospel of John.
		+	* 6. Roberts, C. H. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, London: OUP for the British Academy, 1979 (based on the 1977 series of Schweich Lectures), pp. 12-14
		+	* 7. Deissmann, Adolf. "Ein Evangelienblatt aus den Tagen Hadrians." Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung; 564, 3 Dezemb. 1935
		+	* 8. A. Schmidt, "Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457," Archiv für Papyrusforschung 35 (1989:11–12).
		+	* 9. Nongbri, p. 48.
		+	* 10. St John Fragment John Rylands Library
		+	* 11. Tuckett 2001:544
		+	* 12. New Testament Manuscripts: Papyri
		+	* 13. "The oldest New Testament: P52" Historian.net.
		+	* 14. An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library; ed. C. H. Roberts. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935

	==References==		==References==

Nick: /* Text-critical significance */

Nick — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:29:46 GMT

Text-critical significance

←Older revision		Revision as of 11:29, 13 August 2012
Line 78:		Line 78:
	If the early dating of the papyrus is in fact correct, then the fact that the fragment is from a [[codex]] rather than a [[scroll]] would testify to the very early adoption of this mode of writing amongst Christians, in stark contrast to the invariable practice of contemporary [[Judaism]]. Furthermore, an assessment of the length of 'missing' text between the recto and verso readings corresponds with that in the counterpart canonical Gospel of John; and hence confirms that there are unlikely to have been substantial additions or deletions in this whole portion. Other than two [[itacism]]s, and in the probable omission of the second ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ from line 2 of the verso, [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> agrees with the Alexandrian text base. In lines 4 and 5 of the recto the reconstructed text reads ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ in agreement with [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 66\|66]]</sup> and with the [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209\|Codex Vaticanus]] whereas the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], [[Codex Alexandrinus]] and the [[Majority Text]] all have the alternative word order; ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ, but this is hardly a significant variant. Since this fragment is small – about nine by six centimeters – it cannot be proven that it comes from a full copy of the ''John'' that we know; but it may be presumed that the original text was at least of near full gospel length to be worth the extra care and time required in writing in codex form.		If the early dating of the papyrus is in fact correct, then the fact that the fragment is from a [[codex]] rather than a [[scroll]] would testify to the very early adoption of this mode of writing amongst Christians, in stark contrast to the invariable practice of contemporary [[Judaism]]. Furthermore, an assessment of the length of 'missing' text between the recto and verso readings corresponds with that in the counterpart canonical Gospel of John; and hence confirms that there are unlikely to have been substantial additions or deletions in this whole portion. Other than two [[itacism]]s, and in the probable omission of the second ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ from line 2 of the verso, [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> agrees with the Alexandrian text base. In lines 4 and 5 of the recto the reconstructed text reads ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ in agreement with [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 66\|66]]</sup> and with the [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209\|Codex Vaticanus]] whereas the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], [[Codex Alexandrinus]] and the [[Majority Text]] all have the alternative word order; ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ, but this is hardly a significant variant. Since this fragment is small – about nine by six centimeters – it cannot be proven that it comes from a full copy of the ''John'' that we know; but it may be presumed that the original text was at least of near full gospel length to be worth the extra care and time required in writing in codex form.

-	[[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> is small, and although a plausible reconstruction can be attempted for most of the fourteen lines represented, the proportion of the text of the Gospel of John for which it provides a direct witness is necessarily limited, so it is rarely cited in textual debate.<sup>[]</sup><sup>[]</sup> There has, however, been some contention as to whether the name ''ΙΗΣΟΥ'' (Jesus) in the 'missing' portions of recto lines 2 and 5 was originally written as ''[[nomina sacra\|nomen sacrum]]''; in other words, was it contracted to ''ΙΣ'' or ''ΙΗΣ'' in accordance with otherwise universal Christian practice in surviving early Gospel manuscripts, including the Egerton Gospel? Roberts originally considered that the divine name was more likely to have been written in full, but later changed his mind. This is also the view of [[Larry W. Hurtado]]; with [[Christopher M. Tuckett\|C. M. Tuckett]] maintaining Roberts' original opinion. The verses included in [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> are also witnessed in Bodmer Papyrus [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>66</sup> – usually dated to the beginning of the 3rd century CE – there is also some overlap with [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 60\|60]]</sup> and [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 90\|90]]</sup> of the 7th and 2nd centuries respectively. No two of the four contain the same exact text as reconstructed for John 18:31-38, but [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> seems to represent an example of the same proto-[[Alexandrian text-type]]. [[Kurt Aland\|Aland]] described it as a "Normal text", and placed it in [[Categories of New Testament manuscripts#Category I\|Category I]] (because of its age).<sup>[1]</sup>	+	[[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> is small, and although a plausible reconstruction can be attempted for most of the fourteen lines represented, the proportion of the text of the Gospel of John for which it provides a direct witness is necessarily limited, so it is rarely cited in textual debate.<sup>[11]</sup><sup>[12]</sup><sup>[13]</sup> There has, however, been some contention as to whether the name ''ΙΗΣΟΥ'' (Jesus) in the 'missing' portions of recto lines 2 and 5 was originally written as ''[[nomina sacra\|nomen sacrum]]''; in other words, was it contracted to ''ΙΣ'' or ''ΙΗΣ'' in accordance with otherwise universal Christian practice in surviving early Gospel manuscripts, including the Egerton Gospel? Roberts originally considered that the divine name was more likely to have been written in full, but later changed his mind. This is also the view of [[Larry W. Hurtado]]; with [[Christopher M. Tuckett\|C. M. Tuckett]] maintaining Roberts' original opinion. The verses included in [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> are also witnessed in Bodmer Papyrus [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>66</sup> – usually dated to the beginning of the 3rd century CE – there is also some overlap with [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 60\|60]]</sup> and [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 90\|90]]</sup> of the 7th and 2nd centuries respectively. No two of the four contain the same exact text as reconstructed for John 18:31-38, but [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> seems to represent an example of the same proto-[[Alexandrian text-type]]. [[Kurt Aland\|Aland]] described it as a "Normal text", and placed it in [[Categories of New Testament manuscripts#Category I\|Category I]] (because of its age).<sup>[1]</sup>

	==First publication==		==First publication==

Nick: /* Date */

Nick — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:45:31 GMT

Date

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 13 August 2012
Line 64:		Line 64:
	Scepticism about the use of [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> to date the Gospel of John (not about the fragment's authenticity) is based on two issues. First, the papyrus has been dated based on the handwriting alone, without the support of textual evidence. Secondly, like all other surviving early Gospel manuscripts, this fragment is not from a scroll but from a [[codex]]; a sewn and folded book not a roll. If it dates from the first half of the second century, this fragment would be amongst the earlier surviving examples of a literary codex. (Around [[90]] CE, [[Martial]] circulated his poems in codex form, presenting this as a novelty.) The year before Roberts published [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>, the [[British Museum]] library had acquired papyrus fragments of the [[Egerton Gospel]] which are also from a codex, and these were published in 1935. Since the text of [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> is that of the canonical [[Gospel of John]], whereas the [[Egerton Gospel]] is not, there was considerable interest amongst biblical scholars as to whether [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> could be dated as the earlier of the two papyri.		Scepticism about the use of [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> to date the Gospel of John (not about the fragment's authenticity) is based on two issues. First, the papyrus has been dated based on the handwriting alone, without the support of textual evidence. Secondly, like all other surviving early Gospel manuscripts, this fragment is not from a scroll but from a [[codex]]; a sewn and folded book not a roll. If it dates from the first half of the second century, this fragment would be amongst the earlier surviving examples of a literary codex. (Around [[90]] CE, [[Martial]] circulated his poems in codex form, presenting this as a novelty.) The year before Roberts published [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>, the [[British Museum]] library had acquired papyrus fragments of the [[Egerton Gospel]] which are also from a codex, and these were published in 1935. Since the text of [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> is that of the canonical [[Gospel of John]], whereas the [[Egerton Gospel]] is not, there was considerable interest amongst biblical scholars as to whether [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> could be dated as the earlier of the two papyri.

-	[[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> is a literary text and, in common with almost all such papyri, has no explicit indicator of date. Proposing a date for it required comparison with dated texts, which tend to be documentary (contracts, petitions, letters) and, unlike [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>, are often the work of professional scribes. Roberts proposed four dated papyri as close comparators: Abb 34 (ca. 110-117 CE), P. Fayum 110 (94 CE), P. London 2078 (81-96 CE), and P. Oslo 22 (127 CE). Of these, P. Fayum 110 is the only one that shares the characteristic dual form of alpha found in [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>; while P. Oslo 22 is most similar in some of the more distinctive letter forms, e.g. eta, mu and iota. Roberts also suggested two literary texts as comparators: P. Berol. 6845 (a fragment of the [[Iliad]] estimated to date around 100 CE) which he suggested (other than in the form of the letter alpha) is "the closest parallel to our text that I have been able to find"; and the [[Egerton Gospel]] itself, which was then estimated to date around 150 CE. He stated that it had "most of the characteristics of our hand ... though in a less accentuated form". Roberts circulated his assessment to three fellow paleographers: [[Frederic G. Kenyon]], W. Schubart and [[Idris Bell\|H. I. Bell]]; all concurred with his dating of [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> in the first half of the 2nd century. Kenyon suggested another dated comparator in P. Flor I (153 CE); but Roberts did not consider the similarity to be very close, other than for particular letters, as the overall style of that hand was [[cursive]]. In the same year 1935, Roberts's assessment of date was supported by the independent studies of [[Gustav Adolf Deissmann\|A. Deissmann]], who, while producing no actual evidence, suggested a date in the reigns of Trajan (98-117) or Hadrian (117-138).<sup>[]</sup> In 1936 the dating was supported by [[Ulrich Wilcken]] on the basis of a comparison between the hand of P52 and those of papyri in the extensive Apollonius archive which are dated 113-120.	+	[[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> is a literary text and, in common with almost all such papyri, has no explicit indicator of date. Proposing a date for it required comparison with dated texts, which tend to be documentary (contracts, petitions, letters) and, unlike [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>, are often the work of professional scribes. Roberts proposed four dated papyri as close comparators: Abb 34 (ca. 110-117 CE), P. Fayum 110 (94 CE), P. London 2078 (81-96 CE), and P. Oslo 22 (127 CE). Of these, P. Fayum 110 is the only one that shares the characteristic dual form of alpha found in [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>; while P. Oslo 22 is most similar in some of the more distinctive letter forms, e.g. eta, mu and iota. Roberts also suggested two literary texts as comparators: P. Berol. 6845 (a fragment of the [[Iliad]] estimated to date around 100 CE) which he suggested (other than in the form of the letter alpha) is "the closest parallel to our text that I have been able to find"; and the [[Egerton Gospel]] itself, which was then estimated to date around 150 CE. He stated that it had "most of the characteristics of our hand ... though in a less accentuated form". Roberts circulated his assessment to three fellow paleographers: [[Frederic G. Kenyon]], W. Schubart and [[Idris Bell\|H. I. Bell]]; all concurred with his dating of [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> in the first half of the 2nd century. Kenyon suggested another dated comparator in P. Flor I (153 CE); but Roberts did not consider the similarity to be very close, other than for particular letters, as the overall style of that hand was [[cursive]]. In the same year 1935, Roberts's assessment of date was supported by the independent studies of [[Gustav Adolf Deissmann\|A. Deissmann]], who, while producing no actual evidence, suggested a date in the reigns of Trajan (98-117) or Hadrian (117-138).<sup>[7]</sup> In 1936 the dating was supported by [[Ulrich Wilcken]] on the basis of a comparison between the hand of P52 and those of papyri in the extensive Apollonius archive which are dated 113-120.

	Subsequently, a number of other comparator papyri have been suggested, notably P.Oxy. 2533, where a literary text dated to the early second century in a hand very close to [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> has been written on the back of a re-used document in a late first century business hand. In addition, the discovery of several other papyrus codices of the early second century suggested that this form of book was more common for literary texts at this date than had previously been assumed. Consequently, until the 1990s, the tendency was to suggest a date for [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> towards the earlier half of the range suggested by Roberts and his correspondents. However, a cautionary note was raised by the discovery that a papyrus fragment in Cologne constitutes part of the [[Egerton Gospel]]. In this fragment the letters gamma and kappa are separated by an apostrophe, a feature very rare in dated second century papyri; which accordingly implies a date for the [[Egerton Gospel]] closer to 200 CE - and indicates the perils of ascribing a date for a papyrus text of which only a small part of two pages survives.		Subsequently, a number of other comparator papyri have been suggested, notably P.Oxy. 2533, where a literary text dated to the early second century in a hand very close to [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> has been written on the back of a re-used document in a late first century business hand. In addition, the discovery of several other papyrus codices of the early second century suggested that this form of book was more common for literary texts at this date than had previously been assumed. Consequently, until the 1990s, the tendency was to suggest a date for [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup> towards the earlier half of the range suggested by Roberts and his correspondents. However, a cautionary note was raised by the discovery that a papyrus fragment in Cologne constitutes part of the [[Egerton Gospel]]. In this fragment the letters gamma and kappa are separated by an apostrophe, a feature very rare in dated second century papyri; which accordingly implies a date for the [[Egerton Gospel]] closer to 200 CE - and indicates the perils of ascribing a date for a papyrus text of which only a small part of two pages survives.

Nick: /* Greek text */

Nick — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:43:32 GMT

Greek text

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:43, 13 August 2012
Line 57:		Line 57:
	:not trained in calligraphy and so not accustomed to writing books, though they were familiar with them; they employ what is basically a documentary hand but at the same time they are aware that it is a book and not a document on which they are engaged. They are not personal or private hands; and in most a degree of regularity and of clarity is aimed at and achieved. Such hands may be described as "reformed documentary". (One advantage for the paleographer in such hands is that with their close links to the documents they are somewhat less difficult to date than purely calligraphic hands).<sup>[6]</sup>		:not trained in calligraphy and so not accustomed to writing books, though they were familiar with them; they employ what is basically a documentary hand but at the same time they are aware that it is a book and not a document on which they are engaged. They are not personal or private hands; and in most a degree of regularity and of clarity is aimed at and achieved. Such hands may be described as "reformed documentary". (One advantage for the paleographer in such hands is that with their close links to the documents they are somewhat less difficult to date than purely calligraphic hands).<sup>[6]</sup>

-	It may be added that the codex of [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>, with its good quality papyrus, wide margins, large clear upright letters, short lines, and bilinear writing, would have presented an overall appearance not far from that of professionally written books such as [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 64\|64]]</sup> or [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 77\|77]]</sup>]], even though its actual letter forms are not as fine, and are closer to documentary exemplars.	+	It may be added that the codex of [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>, with its good quality papyrus, wide margins, large clear upright letters, short lines, and bilinear writing, would have presented an overall appearance not far from that of professionally written books such as [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 64\|64]]</sup> or [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>[[Papyrus 77\|77]]</sup>, even though its actual letter forms are not as fine, and are closer to documentary exemplars.

	== Date ==		== Date ==

Nick at 09:42, 13 August 2012

Nick — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:42:04 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:42, 13 August 2012
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:'''Jews?"'''		:'''Jews?"'''

-	''Gospel of [[John 18:37]]-[[John 18:38:38]]'' (verso)	+	''Gospel of [[John 18:37]]-[[John 18:38\|38]]'' (verso)

	:ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ TO'''ΥΤΟ Γ'''Ε'''ΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ'''		:ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ TO'''ΥΤΟ Γ'''Ε'''ΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ'''

Nick: /* Greek text */

Nick — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:34:38 GMT

Greek text

Nick at 09:34, 13 August 2012

Nick — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:34:02 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:34, 13 August 2012
Line 106:		Line 106:
	* [http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html K. C. Hanson - P52: A Fragment of the Gospel of John]		* [http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html K. C. Hanson - P52: A Fragment of the Gospel of John]
	* [http://www.historian.net/P52.html historian.net: P52]		* [http://www.historian.net/P52.html historian.net: P52]
-	* Robert B. Waltz. [http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html#P52 'NT Manuscripts: Papyri, Papyri ~~<math>\mathfrak{P}</math>~~<sup>52</sup>.']	+	* Robert B. Waltz. [http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html#P52 'NT Manuscripts: Papyri, Papyri [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>52</sup>.']
	* [http://digilander.libero.it/Frances.or/ManoscrittiNT/P52.htm Papiro Papyrus P52 (a summary of the paleographic evidence, in Italian); from ''Origini del Cristianesimo'']		* [http://digilander.libero.it/Frances.or/ManoscrittiNT/P52.htm Papiro Papyrus P52 (a summary of the paleographic evidence, in Italian); from ''Origini del Cristianesimo'']

Nick at 09:32, 13 August 2012

Nick — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:32:55 GMT

Show changes

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:34, 13 August 2012
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:'''ΡΙΟΝ Ο Π'''IΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ		:'''ΡΙΟΝ Ο Π'''IΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ
	:'''ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠ'''ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥ-		:'''ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠ'''ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥ-
-	:Δ'''AΙΩ'''N}}	+	:Δ'''AΙΩ'''N

	:'''the Jews, "For us''' it is not permitted to kill		:'''the Jews, "For us''' it is not permitted to kill
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:'''rium P'''ilate and summoned Jesus		:'''rium P'''ilate and summoned Jesus
	:'''and sai'''d to him, "Thou art king of the		:'''and sai'''d to him, "Thou art king of the
-	:'''Jews?"'''}}	+	:'''Jews?"'''

	''Gospel of [[John 18:37]]-[[John 18:38:38]]'' (verso)		''Gospel of [[John 18:37]]-[[John 18:38:38]]'' (verso)
Line 36:		Line 36:
	:ΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ '''ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ'''		:ΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ '''ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ'''
	:Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ Κ'''AΙ ΤΟΥΤO''' :ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ '''ΤΟΥΣ Ι'''ΟΥ-		:Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ Κ'''AΙ ΤΟΥΤO''' :ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ '''ΤΟΥΣ Ι'''ΟΥ-
-	:ΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔ'''EΜΙ'''ΑΝ:ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ}}	+	:ΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔ'''EΜΙ'''ΑΝ:ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ

	:a King I am. For '''this I have been born'''		:a King I am. For '''this I have been born'''
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:having said, again he went out unto '''the Jews'''		:having said, again he went out unto '''the Jews'''
	:and said to them, "I find '''not one'''		:and said to them, "I find '''not one'''
-	:fault in him."}}	+	:fault in him."

	There appears insufficient room for the repeated phrase (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) in the second line of the verso, and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through [[haplography]].		There appears insufficient room for the repeated phrase (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) in the second line of the verso, and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through [[haplography]].