P.Egerton 2

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Found S. E. Porter[1] in my local library yesterday. The probability of this happening is very low. But they also have a book by Michael Bird so it isn't impossible. Porter is currently dabbling in papyrology. He launches into a very dense argument for an early date for John's Gospel based in part on allusions to John in P.Egerton 2, a document that has been known since the 1930s. Porter's argument isn't overwhelmingly persuasive but he does a good job of deconstructing the logic of the mainstream model for literary development of the Gospels.

I an having a hard time finding a greek transcription of P.Egerton 2 online. I put in an ILL request in for a hard copy but that takes three weeks. I think I have the first fragment but only part of 2nd fragment. Back in the late '90s Wieland Willker was working on this, found some old posts in B-Greek and TC-Forum.

Anyway, I may be posting some stuff on Porter's use of P.Egerton 2, if I can make sense out of the text.


[1]John, His Gospel, and Jesus: In Pursuit of the Johannine Voice
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1467444057
Stanley E. Porter - 2015 -

[mwh]

P.Egerton 2, plus a Cologne fragment, is Trismegistos 63527, LDAB 4736. Details at http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/text.php?tm=63527. I don’t know if there’s yet an on-line transcription, but Gronewald probably provides a reliable one at P.Köln Bd.6 no.255, if he follows the series' usual practice of transcribing the whole text when new bits turn up. And I expect he gives a brief but good discussion. It's P.Köln 6 that you should request through ILL. Or you could read the text for yourself, from the images on the web. It's a good clear hand.
[EDIT. Now that I look at the TM entry, I suppose you should get hold of Kraus & Nicklas’ Gospel Fragments too.]

It’s long been recognized among unbiased papyrologists that gospel papyri tend to be dated too early. Perhaps the worst offender was Carsten Thiede, who tried to date a Matthew fragment to mid-1st century, when it can hardly be earlier than 3rd. As I dare say you know, there’s a book by Roger Bagnall soberly reassessing the dating of early Christian papyri. I don’t remember what he says about the Egerton manuscript, but I’m sure his dating will be more trustworthy than Porter’s or any other biblical scholar's. I myself, judging by the images, doubt that it was written before the 3rd century, though it could be a little earlier. But you can probably trust Bagnall.

The text itself clearly goes back further, perhaps much further. And I’m guessing—hoping—that what Porter’s concerned with is not so much the date of the manuscript as the date of its text, quite a different matter, and with its relation to the John gospel. Anyone dealing with John needs to take account of the Egerton gospel, whether or not it’s independent.

[jeidsath]

Fragment 1 recto: http://imgur.com/GXW4022
Fragment 1 verso: http://imgur.com/yEp6YTF

Fragment 2 recto: http://imgur.com/MG73i96
Fragment 2 verso: http://imgur.com/nS9wl1W

Fragment 3 recto: http://imgur.com/sQdBa3S
Fragment 3 verso: http://imgur.com/w8sGXjI

FRAGMENT 1 verso:

… (1) ? ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν (or εἶπεν δὲ)] τοῖς νομικοῖς· [? κολάζετε] πάντα τὸν παραπράσσοντα [καὶ ἄνο]μον καὶ μὴ ἐμέ· . . . α̣ι̣ . . . . . . . οποιεῖ πῶς ποιεῖ; (2) πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοῦ λαοῦ [στ]ρα[φεὶς] εἶπεν τὸν λόγον τοῦτον· ἐραυνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς, ἐν αἷς ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ζωὴν ἔχειν· ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ. (3) μὴ δοκεῖτε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἦλθον κατηγορῆσαι ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου· ἔστιν ὁ κατηγορῶν ὑμῶν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς ὅν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε. (4) αὐτῶν δὲ λεγόντων· εὖ οἴδαμεν ὅτι Μωϋσεῖ ἐλάλησεν ὁ θεός, σὲ δὲ οὐκ οἴδαμεν πόθεν εἶ, ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· νῦν κατηγορεῖται ὑμῶν ἡ ἀπιστία . . .

FRAGMENT 1 recto:

. . . (5) ? συνεβουλεύσαντο τῷ] ὄχλῳ [? ἵνα βαστάσαντες τὰς] λίθους ὁμοῦ λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν. (6) καὶ ἐπέβαλον τὰς χεῖρα̣ς αὐτῶν ἐπ’ αὐτὸν οἱ ἄρχοντες ἵνα πιάσωσιν καὶ παρ̣[αδιδῶσιν ?] τῷ ὄχλῳ· καὶ οὐκ ἐδύναντο αὐτὸν πιάσαι, ὅτι οὔπω ἐληλύθει αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα τῆς παραδόσεως. (7) αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ κύριος ἐξελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἀπένευσεν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν. (8) καὶ ἰδοὺ λεπρὸς προσελθὼν αὐτῷ λέγει· Διδάσκαλε Ἰησοῦ, λεπροῖς συνοδεύων καὶ συνεσθίων αὐτοῖς ἐν τῷ πανδοχείῳ ἐλέπρησα καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγώ. ἐὰν οὖν σὺ θέλῃς, καθαρίζομαι. (9) ὁ δὴ κύριος ἔφη αὐτῷ· θέλω· καθαρίσθητι. καὶ εὐθέως ἀπέστη ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα. (10) [ὁ δὲ κύριος εἶπεν αὐτῷ]· πορε[υθεὶς ἐπίδειξον σεαυτὸν] τοῖς ἱερεῦσι . . .

FRAGMENT 2 recto:

. . . (11) παραγενόμενοι πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐξ[ετασ]τικῶς ἐπείραζον αὐτόν, λέγοντες· διδάσκαλε Ἰησοῦ, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας· ἃ γὰρ ποιεῖς μαρτυρεῖ ὑπὲρ τοὺς προφήτας πάντας. (12) λέγε οὖν ἡμῖν· ἐξὸν τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν [ἀποδοῦ]ναι τὰ ἀνήκοντα τῇ ἀρχῇ; ἀπ[οδῶμεν αὐ]τοῖς ἢ μή; (13) ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἰδὼς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐμβριμησάμενος εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τί με καλεῖτε τῷ στόματι ὑμῶν διδάσκαλον, μὴ ἀκούοντες ὃ λέγω; (14) καλῶς Ἡσαΐας περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπροφήτευσεν, εἰπών· ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ. μάτην με σέβονται, ἐντάλματα . . .

FRAGMENT 2 verso:

. . . (15) ]τῳ τόπῳ κατακλεισαντ . . . . . ὑποτέτακται ἀδήλως . . . . . . . . τὸ βάρος αὐτοῦ ἄστατον . . . . .; (16) ἀπορηθέντων δὲ ἐκείνων [ὡς] πρὸς τὸ ξένον ἐπερώτημα αὐτοῦ, περιπατῶν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τοῦ χείλους τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ποταμοῦ, καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ τὴν δεξιὰν . . . μισεν . . . . . καὶ κατέσπειρεν ἐπὶ τὸν . . . . . . ον. (17) καὶ τότε . . . . κατε[? σπαρμ]ένον ὕδωρ εν . . . ν τὴν . . . . . . . . . . καὶ ἐπ . . . θη ἐνώ[πιον αὐτῶν] ἐξήγαγεν δὲ καρπόν . . .

[mwh]

Joel, Unless this transcription is your own, which somehow I doubt, you should say whose it is and where it comes from. There are typos, presumably yours, but Stirling should be grateful to you for taking the trouble to copy it out.

[jeidsath]

Sorry, I'm still editing the post. I'm typing it up from Bell's Fragment's of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri, published just after the discovery of the papyri.

EDIT: I believe that I've fixed the typos, etc. Links at the top are images of the original papyri.

[jeidsath]

Having read it now a number of times as I typed it up, and again this morning, I think I would characterize this gospel as something similar to Luke in conception: a collation of existing gospels, but trying to be its own composition rather than a unification or diatessaron. Maybe a highlights gospel as opposed to a sayings gospel, since transitions appear abrupt. It takes its stories from the Synoptics and John (I don't see how our John could have ever been extracted from something like this as a source -- the Synoptic tradition is hidden in a conscious, careful, way in John, but not in this, which must therefore be later).

However, what is it a union of? The Synoptics and John, certainly. Anything else? The lines about Moses seem to indicate an interesting creative spirit behind this (authorial or source).

One of the most interesting parts to me, brought up by Bell in his notes is "ἐραυνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς, ἐν αἷς ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ζωὴν ἔχειν· ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ." Apparently, in a number of Latin and Syriac manuscripts in the Western tradition (but not Greek), the verse in John that this paraphrases is doublet. It has the normal John tradition followed by this wording. Bell suggests that a scribe may have cited our unknown Gospel (or a source) in the margin in some manuscript.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Joel,

Thanks for taking an interest in this. You can drop by the Graduate Theological Union and use their library, right? That's an awesome library.

Francis Watson talks about this is several publications[1]. He takes issue with Gronewald's transcription at the very end of P.Koln 255 verso which is a Johnannine type saying. Moses ... he wrote to your/our fathers. The point of issue is the pronoun at the bottom right corner of the fragment. Watson reads the broken first letter of the pronoun as an eta HMW[N], whereas Gronewald transcribed it as UMW[N]. Watson claims that John would not have worded it that way. Watson and Gronewald have discussed this. I was able to pull up the page in Watson with the following Google string search:

Google search: "rendered by Gronewald and subsequent editors"

Would be nice to have a third opinion, Michael? The letter certainly doesn't look like an upsilon. It has a bar in the middle.


[1]Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective - Page 294
Francis Watson - 2013

[C. S. Bartholomew]

It’s long been recognized among unbiased papyrologists that gospel papyri tend to be dated too early.

Michael,

Not sure what an unbiased papyrologist would look like. There was a great howling protest when Philip Comfort published his first edition (Baker) The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts 1999. The tendency to use textual evidence in apologetics has tainted the discussion on all sides. We have people like Josh McDowell (I have never read anything by him). We have a long list of skeptics who have made textual criticism a tool for promoting their ideas. This isn't news. It has been going on for several hundred years. For the most part guys who post on Evangelical Textual Criticism are not into apologetics, there is at least one exception.

Even Stanley Porter's book mentioned at beginning of this thread has a mildly apologetic flavor. I was surprised by this. Porter's work on greek syntax wouldn't give you the impression that he has any dogmatic interest whatsoever. I had some discussions with his students at the Roehampton Institute back in the 1990s. Didn't get an impression that this was a particularly conservative or even orthodox project. His PhD candidates were from all over the globe and all over the theological spectrum.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Joel,

Found a host of transcriptions by searching on the portions of the greek text you provided.

http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseur ... hanson.pdf

http://textexcavation.com/pegerton2.html

http://www.patrologia-lib.ru/apocryph/novum/egerton.htm

As both Porter and Watson point out, we discover that the P.Egerton/P.Koln 255 parallels to John's Gospel contain some language details not characteristic of John. For example, διδασκαλε ιη(σου), a mode of address not found in the NT. Where the vocative διδασκαλε is combined with the name ιη(σου). This doesn't indicate direct literary dependence in either direction. I makes more sense to picture a common pool of "tradition" not necessarily written down.

[mwh]

What would an unbiased papyrologist look like? Like me, of course. Or better, like Roger Bagnall. At any rate, someone without an interest in having Xn MSS be as early as possible—or as late as possible, either. Much the same for textual criticism. I would not touch evangelical textual criticism, whatever that is, with a 10-foot pole. Disinterest is what’s needed.

I’ve seen images of all the papyrus fragments except the verso of the Cologne piece. So I’m afraid I can’t weigh in on ημ vs. υμ there. (On upsilon a trema would be expected.) But Gronewald is a good papyrologist, and Watson isn’t (and may have a vested interest?), so my money would be on Gronewald. Now I see the script again I have to say it does not look as late as I suggested. Second century looks likelier then third, perhaps even first half of 2nd. But that’s just a general impression, and this kind of script has often been dated too early I think. The divider between doubled consonants is a useful criterion, and that points to later. If Bagnall pronounces on the date, you’d do well to heed him.

I’d be less sure than Joel that this gospel is dependent on the canonicals, but I haven’t really looked into the matter. There were any number of gospels floating around, and it took some time (plus a fair bit of theological dogma) for the situation to stabilize.

You don’t need a host of transcriptions. You need one, a reliable one. Bell (E.G. Turner’s teacher) is unlikely to be surpassed, unless Gronewald takes issue with him.

Over to you guys. Have fun.
Michael

[C. S. Bartholomew]

The language use departs from John's and at some points with the NT. For example διδάσκαλε Ἰη(σοῦ) in other words DIDASKALEIH where IH is nomina sacra. This is not a new testament idiom. Jesus name is never combined with διδάσκαλε which according to John is a a translation of Rabboni. As far as Koine goes, there is nothing wrong with διδάσκαλε Ἰη(σοῦ) but NT authors didn't use it. This is one of the features that makes P.Egerton 2 w/ P.Koln 255 interesting.

Watson and Porter[1] don't come to the same conclusion on the direction of the dependence. Watson titles his long chapter on P.Egerton 2 - P.Koln 255 "A Johannine Source" so there is no suspense. You know where he is headed up front. Porter points out that these fragments cite all four Canonical gospels and no other gospels that we know about, such as the so called Gnostic gospels. The fragment is such a small sample I not sure that much should be made of the limitation to the canonical gospels. I lean towards Porter's position but don't get there by the same road.

Another factor is the theological orthodoxy, in other words none of the typical apocryphal weirdness is evident in the fragment. Even the texts which are not blatantly heretical often have other kinds of weirdness, a sort fairy tale quality about them. All of this is missing from this fragment. Watson's take on this has a similar flavor to Bart Ehrman. He suggests that the so called Gospel of Thomas represents an alternative form of early Christianity, compares it to Paulinism[2].

[1] Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective, Francis Watson - 2013;
John, His Gospel, and Jesus: In Pursuit of the Johannine Voice, Stanley E. Porter - 2015.

[2]Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective -
Francis Watson - 2013, the Discussion of Gospel of Thomas, pages 224-225.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

John 9:27 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς· εἶπον ὑμῖν ἤδη καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε· τί πάλιν θέλετε ἀκούειν; μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς θέλετε αὐτοῦ μαθηταὶ γενέσθαι; 28 καὶ ἐλοιδόρησαν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπον· σὺ μαθητὴς εἶ ἐκείνου, ἡμεῖς δὲ τοῦ Μωϋσέως ἐσμὲν μαθηταί· 29 ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι Μωϋσεῖ λελάληκεν ὁ θεός, τοῦτον δὲ οὐκ οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν. 30 ἀπεκρίθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ τὸ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν, ὅτι ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε πόθεν ἐστίν, καὶ ἤνοιξέν μου τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς.

Re: P.Egerton 2

ε[ὖ] οἴδαμεν ὅτι Μω(ϋσεῖ) ἐλάλησεν ὁ θ(εό)ς, σὲ δὲ οὐκ οἴδαμεν [πόθεν εἶ]. GErg [1]

The use of the personal pronoun σὲ by Jesus opponents in P.Egerton 2 is a significant variation from John who has the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτον. In John the tone of the discourse is colored by this usage.

[1] Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective, Francis Watson, 2013, p.310

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Francis Watson talks about this is several publications[1]. He takes issue with Gronewald's transcription at the very end of P.Koln 255 verso which is a Johnannine type saying. Moses ... he wrote to your/our fathers. The point of issue is the pronoun at the bottom right corner of the fragment. Watson reads the broken first letter of the pronoun as an eta HMW[N], whereas Gronewald transcribed it as UMW[N]. Watson claims that John would not have worded it that way. Watson and Gronewald have discussed this.

The textual reading involving UMW[N] vs HMW[N] is discussed briefly in an article by Timo S. Paananen[1]. Paananen repeats what Watson claims is Gronewald's argument about the reading. What appears to be a damaged eta, H with a missing left vertical was an error corrected to upsilon.

[1] Another “Fake” Or Just a Problem of Method: What Francis Watson’s Analysis Does to Payrus Papyrus_Köln_255 Timo S. Paananen (University of Helsinki)

https://www.academia.edu/12261997/Anoth ... s_Köln_255

[jeidsath]

Another factor is the theological orthodoxy, in other words none of the typical apocryphal weirdness is evident in the fragment.

That's exactly what struck me as well. I have a longer post in my head about this, and hope to post later today.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Another factor is the theological orthodoxy, in other words none of the typical apocryphal weirdness is evident in the fragment.

That's exactly what struck me as well. I have a longer post in my head about this, and hope to post later today.

Joel,

While I was working on this "orthodox" fragment, gathering materials together from various sources, I inadvertently came across an article on "the Gospel of Jesus Wife" by Francis Watson. This is potentially a real time waster. The "fragment" was composed in Coptic or pseudo-Coptic. The Egyptologist that Watson consulted commented on the syntax errors. This left wondering if the Gospel of Thomas also had similar syntax problems. I have resisted the temptation to dabble in Coptic. It looks a little like greek until you start doing syntax and then it no longer looks like greek. The danger in studying GspTh on it's own is something like reading the Apocalypse of John to study Koine Greek. You end up with a very skewed view of Greek syntax if your only exposure is the Apocalypse of John.