data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9eda9/9eda961cba1d0be1424f1a0691deb8b318c90f59" alt=""
The presence of an ending of a different work on → led Arthur S. Hunt, the fragment’s principal editor, to conclude that P18 is a re-used roll. And this conclusion had been widely accepted until Brent Nongbri disturbed the status quo with his 2013 article. There, Brent posits that, instead, our fragment is likely to have been once part of a composite codex.
In the course of my investigation into the papyri of Revelation, I ended up revisiting this problem and wrote a little piece, which has been published in the latest issue of NTS (it’s in fact the first issue of the 2019 volume, so perhaps we’re dealing with a bit of realised eschatology, pace Rev 1.19).
For the article, see now ‘P.Oxy. VIII 1079 (P18): Closing on a “Curious” Codex?’, NTS 65 (2019) 94–102.
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteYour article prompted me to more formally write up my thoughts on Charlesworth's article about this papyrus: https://brentnongbri.com/2018/12/02/an-oxyrhynchus-papyrus-of-exodus-and-revelation/
Awesome. Thanks very much for this!
Delete...Ezekiel and Revelation are both scroll-prominent books. Maybe, so, given a choice?
ReplyDelete