P.Oxy. 5575 has been all the buzz in NT studies and the amount of stuff written about it is piling up, so here's a thread summarizing everything written/spoken on P.Oxy. 5575 so far
(for my benefit, as much as for yours!)
🧵...
The papyrus was published on Aug 31, 2023, in volume 87 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (pp. 6-14) as no. 5575 and entitled "Sayings of Jesus"
It was edited by Jeffrey Fish, Dan Wallace, and Mike Holmes
DM me if you'd like to see a copy of the publication
I think Mike Holmes (one of the editors of P.Oxy. 5575) wrote the best overall article that is widely accessible to those who don't know Greek (), and he provided an English translation: bit.ly/44M3IBD
Holmes is especially helpful when he reflects on why the fragment is important, but also being careful with the unknowns
The first article was published on August 31 by @candidamoss who says: "The significance of the fragment lies in its date and contents" dated to 2nd cent. (we only have a few MSS that early), and it contains a mixture of canonical & non-canonical material
UPDATE #1: @pjgurry commented on FB: "It should be added that Mark Goodacre pointed out that if the ανε in line 1 (recto) is the ἀπέθανε of GTh 63.3 then the *order* of sayings is following Luke 12"
There’s been a lot of talk about a bombshell set of papers at SBL about the distigmai of Codex Vaticanus and what this means for @PhilipBPayne’s view
Here was the main argument made… 🧵
A scientist (Ira Rabin) and a biblical scholar (Nehemia Gordon) were allowed to study Codex Vaticanus in person and use micro X-ray fluorescence (µXRF) and ultraviolet-visible-near-infrared (UV-vis-NIR) reflectography to determine the chemical composition of the different inks
Philip Payne has argued that the distigmai (double dots) were added by the original NT scribe of Codex Vaticanus and were meant to mark places of textual variation or omission
Most famously, Payne argued that the passage on women being silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34-35) is…
(1) First, some praise: I still like Wallace's grammar and no one should dismiss it as out-dated or completely wrong methodologically.
It's technically an "exegetical syntax," so he works through so many examples that even if you disagree w/ him, it's still worth consulting
there are plenty of newer intermediate Greek grammars (e.g., Decker, Plummer & Merkle, Mathewson & Emig),
but they don't work though as many examples as Wallace, and even the examples they do have, their discussion is usually always brief and not as detailed as Wallace
I first learned Greek exegesis in seminary by reading Dan Wallace's grammar cover-to-cover twice, and categorizing every word in Ephesians
I became overzealous to meticulously categorize every word/phrase of the GNT 😬
But -- I changed after...
In 2015, I took Peter Gentry's Advanced Greek Grammar and we read Eugene Goetchius's grammar (1965), the first NT grammar to use modern linguistic analysis
Goetchius employed cross-linguistic explanations to great effect, showing Greek wasn't so different from English
We also read Steve Runge's Discourse Grammar; it was revolutionary for me to get away from categorizing everything, but rather recognize:
(1) choice implies meaning (2) semantic meaning is different from pragmatic effect (3) default patterns are different than marked ones