p.Oxy. 5575 discussion, zoom, today 12 noon edt

[Leucius Charinus]

One interesting possibility is that p.Oxy. 5575 and p.Oxy. 4009 are both from the Gospel of Peter.

Wow that would be an interesting outcome. Could you expand on this possibility?

[andrewcriddle]

One interesting possibility is that p.Oxy. 5575 and p.Oxy. 4009 are both from the Gospel of Peter.

Wow that would be an interesting outcome. Could you expand on this possibility?

p.Oxy.4009 has been held to be from the Gospel of Peter by some scholars.
See e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... A1A4E57B8D
If the same person wrote p.Oxy.5575 then maybe they are both from the Gospel of Peter.

Andrew Criddle

[Ken Olson]

p. Oxy 5575 is a small fragment and small fragments don't generally have identifiable compositional and redactional characteristics because the sample size is too small for that. It seems to me that the fragment could be fit into a great many source theories where the larger source theory supplies the compositional and redactional characteristics. It's congenial to Farrer on a Mark=>Matthew=>Luke=>Thomas=>p. Oxy. 5575 model. But I don't see how a 2DH (Mark-Q) model could be falsified.

What seriously proposed source theories are not compatible with p. Oxy. 5575? Does it falsify any?

Best,

Ken

[Leucius Charinus]

One interesting possibility is that p.Oxy. 5575 and p.Oxy. 4009 are both from the Gospel of Peter.

Wow that would be an interesting outcome. Could you expand on this possibility?

p.Oxy.4009 has been held to be from the Gospel of Peter by some scholars.
See e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... A1A4E57B8D
If the same person wrote p.Oxy.5575 then maybe they are both from the Gospel of Peter.

Is there any evidence however that p. oxy 5575 reflects the Gospel of Peter? Another alternative would be that the same scribe was responsible for 5575 (where this did not reflect g.Peter) and 4009 (where this did reflect g.Peter).

Here is what Brent Nongbri writes:

P.Oxy. 87.5575 and P.Oxy. 60.4009: The Same Copyist
Posted on September 30, 2023 by Brent Nongbri

The editors of P.Oxy. 87.5575, the recently published papyrus fragment with a collection of sayings of Jesus, stated that P.Oxy. 60.4009, another papyrus with material about Jesus, “may well be in the same hand, though the loops in that papyrus are sometimes more pronounced and there is perhaps less lifting of the pen.” In preparation for a meeting of the North American Society for the Study of Christian Apocryphal Literature yesterday, I spent some time with images of the two papyri and managed to convince myself that these pieces were in fact copied by the same person.


///

I would be even more interested to see if it is possible to identify the work of a single copyist who was responsible for both Christian and non-Christian papyri.

https://brentnongbri.com/2023/09/30/p-o ... e-copyist/

[StephenGoranson]

So far, it may be possible that 4009 and 5575 are from the same, small size, codex.
Or not, also possibly from different codices, single column or (less likely?) double column still possible, one or both or neither?
IF they are from the same codex, this would seem to be a collection of traditions which became, at least approximately, eventually known--before and/or after this (in the second century)--by different collection names, not just one name.

[StephenGoranson]

On a matter of less (imo) importance, LC wrote, above, in part:
"It's obvious to all historians of antiquity, both biblical and classical, that the rise of the Christian Right commenced with the rise of Constantine."

No, it is not.

[vocesanticae]

One interesting possibility is that p.Oxy. 5575 and p.Oxy. 4009 are both from the Gospel of Peter.

Wow that would be an interesting outcome. Could you expand on this possibility?

p.Oxy.4009 has been held to be from the Gospel of Peter by some scholars.
See e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... A1A4E57B8D
If the same person wrote p.Oxy.5575 then maybe they are both from the Gospel of Peter.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,

I attended the P.Oxy. 5575 presentation on Sept 29, 2023, and put some questions to Mills, then wrote up a summary that same day for some research collaborators, which I've now posted public access on my Patreon. As you'll see, I'm of the same mind as you about it being a fragment of the Gospel of Peter. My review in Vigiliae Christianae of Nicklas and Kraus' compendium on GPeter provides some further background about how I think about that text, which also played a significant role in my dissertation research, which found GPeter's crucifixion account to be earlier than canonical Luke's based on a close comparative reading.

- Mark

[StephenGoranson]

4009 and 5575, Nongbri demonstrated well, imo, are from the same hand, scribe, or copyist.
Whether they are from the same ms is possible but uncertain.
Whether or not they are from the same codex, they both appear to me to be collections of sayings without any canonical nor any named-gospel-entity constraint (regardless whether those names appeared before or after, somewhere), which, if so, may accord with its early date.

[StephenGoranson]

Ken Olson asked above, Tue Oct 03, 2023 5:22 am, in part:
"....What seriously proposed source theories are not compatible with p. Oxy. 5575? Does it falsify any?"

Though I am not aware that it falsifies any of these, it may be that it may possibly add to suggestions of early text fluidity, including the question(s) of when texts were known as being from Matthew, Luke, Thomas, or Peter, or none of these.

[Leucius Charinus]

One interesting possibility is that p.Oxy. 5575 and p.Oxy. 4009 are both from the Gospel of Peter.

Wow that would be an interesting outcome. Could you expand on this possibility?

p.Oxy.4009 has been held to be from the Gospel of Peter by some scholars.
See e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... A1A4E57B8D
If the same person wrote p.Oxy.5575 then maybe they are both from the Gospel of Peter.

Thanks Andrew. From that link:

Abstract

In 1993, Dieter Lührmann published a reconstruction of the more intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009. He demonstrated that this side, which he called the recto, consists of passages parallel to Matt 10.16 par., Luke 10.3 and 2 Clem. 5.2–4. He also argued that the passage stems from the Gospel of Peter. However, Lührmann considered it impossible (‘ausgeschlossen’) to reconstruct the other side of the fragment. The aim of the present article is to demonstrate that a full reconstruction of this less intelligible side of P.Oxy. 4009, lines 1–13, is possible and that it enriches our knowledge of the Gospel of Peter with a new pericope which is an interesting parallel of Luke 7.36–50. The reconstruction also demonstrates that the side reconstructed by Lührmann is actually the verso, and that both sides together point towards the well-known anti-Jewish redactional tendencies of the author of the Gospel of Peter.

////

Footnote 3

Foster, Paul, ‘Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?’, NTS 52 (2006) 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 15–16. Foster draws attention to the round E with the extended horizontal line, the narrow A and the broad Θ, again with an extended horizontal line, as well as the broad Δ; they all indicate third century style. He thinks that P.Oxy. 4009 may be best compared with Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66) and P.Oxy. 2334, both of which are dated to the 3rd century.