Earliest Gospel Fragment

[Nazaroo]

Here's a link to what is claimed as the earliest gospel fragment so far found:

Papyrus

 

[ThaYoun1]

wow

 

[FreezBee]

Here's a link to what is claimed as the earliest gospel fragment so far found:

Papyrus

Well,

The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language.

I have read about a fragment of John dated to pretty close to the turn of the first century. Is it the same fragment?


- FreezBee

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

It is the same fragment of the Gospel of John. They date it to around 125 AD.

That places it about 40 years later than when the original Gospel of John was understood to have been written, around 85 AD. That makes this copy found in Egypt "hot off the press." in the ancient sense of it.

Lamorak Des Galis

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The fragment doesn't even amount to a complete sentence.

All we can conclude is that John and some mystery document seem to have a sentence or two in common. For all we know the document the fragment derives from otherwise diverges radically from John.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Here's a link to what is claimed as the earliest gospel fragment so far found:

Papyrus

Yes, it's evidence that John's Gospel was well circulated by that time, which refutes 75% of all gnostic claims

 

[WinduDe]

LOL thats awesome

 

[duv1010]

Cool, thank you.

 

[imind]

Yes, it's evidence that John's Gospel was well circulated by that time, which refutes 75% of all gnostic claims

no it doesn't. it simply suggests multiple stories were circulating.

 

[Ahazmat]

What is the translation of the fragment?

 

[artybloke]

It's a tiny fragment of the Gospel of John, it tells us very little with certainty. It's very lucky to have survived. it certainly doesn't refute any gnostic teachings, because as far as I know no gnostic teaching says that John was written later than it was. (Gnostic teachings on the whole make Derbyite dispensationalism and other contemporary nonsense look quite sensible in comparison.) This fragment has been known about for quite some time; it's not news to Biblical scholars.

 

[S Walch]

There is actually two fragments that some Papyrologists have claimed to be older than this Papyrus (named P52 or Gr.P.457), and that is P64 (Gr.17), and P67 (P.Barcelona 1)

Here's some information from my Book Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts, page 50-51:

Thiede posits a first-century date for P64 based primarily on his observation that some of the lettering is distinctly similar to that found in the Greek Minor Propets Scroll 8HevXIIgr from Nahal Hever, which has been dated by various scholars between 50 B.C and 50 A.D. He observed that se veral of the letters are identical or nearly identical, whereas others and dissimilar....Thiede also notes similarities with the papyri of the Herculaneum (dated no later than A.D 79) and the Greek Qumran fragment of Leviticus pap4QLXXLev. The Herculaneum maniscripts display an earlier form of calligraph , and pap4QLXXLev, though exhibiting similarieis in many individual letters, is much earlier in its overall appearance (Roberts dated it to th late second century B.C). NEvertheless, seeing similarities with earlier manuscripts, Thiede suggest an earlier date for P64/P67:

The prevailing tendency to date material of a nature comparable to Magdalen Gr.17 to a period even preceding the earliest possible date of Matthew's gospel suggest, with all due caution, the possibility of redating the fragments from Oxford and Barcelona - which are, after all, definitely Matthean, to a period somewhat earlier than the late second entury previously assigned to them. Certainty will remain elusive, of course.

In another publication (Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscripts Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels), Thiede posits that the earlier date could be as early as the middle of the first century, even a pre-A.D 66 date."

There's some information regarding P64/67.

But that's not all.

There are many other Greek fragments that can be given a Pre 150 A.D date, and they are as follows:

P4, P32, P46, P66, P77, P87, P90, P98, P103, P104, P108, and P109.

And they contain as follows:

P4 - Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20

P32 - Titus 1:11-2:8

P46 - Romans 5:17-6:3, 5-14, 8:15-25, 27-35, 37-9:32; 10:1-11:22, 24-33, 35-16:27 Hebrews 1:1-9:16, 18-10:20, 22-30, 32-13:25 1 Corinthians 1:1-9:2, 4-14:14, 16-15:15, 17-16:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1-11:10, 12-21, 23-13:13 Ephesians 1:1-2:7, 10-5:6, 8-6:6, 8-18, 20-24 Galatians 1:1-8, 10-2:9, 12-21; 3:2-29; 4:2-18, 20-5:17, 20-6:8, 10-18 Philippians 1:1, 5-15, 17-28, 30-2:12, 14-27, 29-3:8, 10-21; 4:2-12, 14-23; Colossians 1:1-2, 5-13, 16-24, 27-2:19, 23-3:11, 13-24; 4:3-12, 16-18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 9-2:3; 5:5-9, 23-28

P66 - John 1:1-6:11, 35-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7, 10-20:20, 22-23, 25-21:9, 12, 17.

P77 - Matthew 23:30-39

P87 - Philemon 13-15, 24-25

P90 - John 18:36-19:7

P98 - Revelation 1:13-2:1

P103 - Matthew 13:55-57

P104 - Matthew 21:34-37

P108 - John 17:23-24; 18:1-5

P109 - John 21:18-20, 23-25

The Fragment posted in post #1 contains portions of the verse of John 18:31-33 on one side, and then John 18:37-38 on the other.

The translation would be as follows: (those words contained in brackets are to make it understandable in English, due to Greek word order not being the same as English, and due to them also missing from the fragment. The words not in brackets are reproduced in the manuscipt (although in Greek ))

31. The Jews [said to him, "It is not lawful] for us [to put] anyone [to death."]
32. In order that the saying [of Jesus might be fulfilled which] He said signifying [the death He was about] to die from.
33. [Then] Pliate entered [again into the] Pretorium [and called Jesus and] said [to Him, "You are the King of the] Jews?"

Now, the reverse side:

37. [You say that I am a King. For] this I have been born [and I have come into the] world in order that I should bear witness [to the truth. Everyone that is ] of the truth [hears my voice].
38. [Pilate ] said to Him, ["What is truth?"] And [saying] this [he went out again towards] the Jews [and said to them, "I have found] nothing [that is worthy of punishment."]

And, there you have it.

 

[strive365]

Are these fragments similar to Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[S Walch]

Are these fragments similar to Dead Sea Scrolls?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I'll have a go at answering what I think you're asking:

No, they're not like the DSS. The DSS were written on animal skins - All these Greek NT fragments were written on papyrus, which is made from a tall water plant in Egypt.

Also, the DSS were written in Hbrew (although there were a few Greek manscripts with them as well).

The DSS were also found in jars in caves. Most of these papyri were found buried in sand in Egypt.

 

[strive365]

Wow you seem to know quite alot about this. This is knowledge for me. It's difficult to read the DSS, but one of the interesting parts is where it talks about the GIANTS.

 

[S Walch]

What book are you reading concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls?

It sounds like you're reading something regarding the Essene communities commentry on the Scriptures.

To read a translation of the Hebrew of the Biblical manuscripts of the DSS, you might want to purchase The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. It also gives lots of information regarding the DSS themselves.

 

[djconklin]

it simply suggests multiple stories were circulating.

How in the world does a fragment the size of a postage stamp do that?!?

 

[chuckm137]

Wow you seem to know quite alot about this. This is knowledge for me. It's difficult to read the DSS, but one of the interesting parts is where it talks about the GIANTS.

 

[chuckm137]

I am interested in the Herculaneum papyri and especially anything connected to the New Testament early church etc. And even more specific any Neologisms or Hapax Legomenon or Faith or Create (kitisis)