tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1825330067406823248..comments2024-03-17T17:46:24.354+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Bagnall on Early Christian Books in EgyptP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-43452003964554749342009-09-17T09:42:49.121+01:002009-09-17T09:42:49.121+01:00Sorry, two clarifications.
1. I do think this boo...Sorry, two clarifications. <br />1. I do think this book is interesting, and I shall bring this out in some future posts.<br />2. I also think there has been grade inflation in some circles in relation to the dates assigned to NT mss.<br />3. Roger Bagnall was a respondent to a paper I gave at SBL in Toronto in maybe 2002. But we didn't have any argument, he basically agreed with my paper. I would be a nobody to Bagnall.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81138158160808056242009-09-17T09:39:49.299+01:002009-09-17T09:39:49.299+01:00There is no history (until now!).There is no history (until now!).Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84224159076364603932009-09-16T18:52:08.329+01:002009-09-16T18:52:08.329+01:00I was wondering when you might comment on this boo...I was wondering when you might comment on this book. I've been working through it and was curious if you two might have had some history. It was really odd that he cited Comfort's appraisal of the Magdalen Papyrus issue, but not yours (though published in the same journal!), simply relegating it to one of those which "…appeared in theological periodicals little read in papyrological circles." <br /><br />I look forward to future posts…I'll have to hurry up and finish reading the book!Ricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91761056879579253792009-09-16T13:19:15.935+01:002009-09-16T13:19:15.935+01:00Well, maybe. I don't see why Alexandria would ...Well, maybe. I don't see why Alexandria would be that different from e.g. Antioch or Rome, papyri-wise. <br />But I don't want to stress this point too much, it doesn't matter much.Wieland Willkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376942788228063430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77116162373139276822009-09-16T12:04:05.285+01:002009-09-16T12:04:05.285+01:00Yes - but he is only dealing with Egypt, outside o...Yes - but he is only dealing with Egypt, outside of Egypt there would be population centres with significant Christian populations in the first and second century.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81439825916296023462009-09-16T10:51:47.010+01:002009-09-16T10:51:47.010+01:00What he is doing is correlating the number of exta...What he is doing is correlating the number of extant papyri with the possible number of Christians. And he finds the numbers to fit roughly if one uses his dating. In the beginning there were, according to him, much fewer papyri than we commonly assume. The less papyri there are in the beginning, the less copying takes place and the less copying generations you have up to about 350 CE. The shift, Bagnall proposes, is about 50 years.Wieland Willkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376942788228063430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45224362424912485972009-09-16T10:09:29.421+01:002009-09-16T10:09:29.421+01:00But Wieland, he is only talking about surviving pa...But Wieland, he is only talking about surviving papyri from Egypt, so there would have been plenty of NT mss on papyri elsewhere (which don't survive). You don't lose copying generations by redating extant papyri.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-10935998852499300882009-09-16T10:03:39.638+01:002009-09-16T10:03:39.638+01:00Everybody should read this book!
Basically Bagn...Everybody should read this book! <br /><br />Basically Bagnall argues for two things: <br /><br />1. The early Christian papyri are dated too early throughout by about 50 years. <br />I have no problem with that and I think it doesn't matter much, does it? <br /><br />2. The origin of the Christian codex is due to an adoption of Roman custom. <br />Again no problem with that. I never understood why this is an interesting question at all. <br /><br />The interesting thing for me is from point 1 that if there are so few early papyri, the time and possibility for an evolutionary origin (slow development theory) of the Byzantine text is further shrinking. It is present probably already in the middle of the 4th CE (Gospels). If numbers of Christian manuscripts start to appear only around 200 CE, there are only about 150 years to allow for the Byzantine text to come up. In 150 years a manuscript is copied perhaps 1-3 times, not enough for an evolutionary model, IMO. <br />I still think that the origin of the Byzantine text (Gospels) is best explained by some kind of recension or revision.Wieland Willkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376942788228063430noreply@blogger.com