|
}}
'''Rylands Library Papyrus P52''' (diberi kode <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>), juga dikenal sebagai '''''St. John's fragment''''', adalah fragmen terbuat dari bahan papirus, bagian dari suatu buku atau ''[[codex]]'', berukuran hanya 3,5 x 2,5 inci (8,9 x 6 cm) pada bagian terlebarnya; dan tersimpan dalam kumpulan ''[[Rylands Papyri]]'' di [[John Rylands University Library]] (Gr. P. 457), [[Manchester]], [[Britania Raya]]. Potongan ini memuat tulisan [[bahasa Yunani]] kuno gaya Koine. Bagian depan (''recto'') berisi 7 baris dari [[Injil Yohanes]][[Yohanes 18| pasal 18:31–33]], dan bagian belakang (''verso'') bertuliskan 7 baris dari pasal yang sama ayat 37–38.<ref name = Aland>{{Cite book
|last=Aland
|first=Kurt
''{{Alkitab|Yohanes 18:31-33}}'' (recto)
{{quote|'''<big>ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙ</big>'''ΟΙ '''<big>ΗΜΙ</big>'''Ν ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ <br/>'''<big>OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο Λ</big>'''ΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ-<br/>'''<big>ΠΕΝ ΣHΜΑΙΝΩ</big>'''Ν ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ-<br/>'''<big>ΘΝHΣΚΕΙΝ Ε</big>'''ΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ-<br/>'''<big>ΡΙΟΝ Ο Π</big>'''IΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ <br/>'''<big>ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠ</big>'''ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥ-<br/>Δ'''<big>AΙΩ</big>'''N}}
{{quote|...
'''orang-orang Yahudi itu: "Kami''' tidak diperbolehkan membunuh<br/>
'''the Jews, "For us''' it is not permitted to kill<br/>
'''anyone,seseorang." soDemikian thathendaknya the wf'''ordrman ofYesus Jesussupaya might be fulfilleddigenapi, which heyang spdi-<br/>
'''katakan-Nya untuk menyataka'''n bagaimana caranya Ia akan<br/>
'''oke signifyin'''g what kind of death he was going to<br/>
'''diemati. EnMasu'''teredklah thereforekembali againkemudian intoke thedalam Praetogedung pengad-<br/>
'''riumilan P'''ilateilatus andlalu summonedmemanggil JesusYesus<br/>
'''anddan saiber'''dtanya to him,kepada-Nya "Thou art kingEngkau ofinikah theraja<br/>
'''Jewsorang Yahudi?"'''"}}
''{{Alkitab|Yohanes 18:37-38}}'' (''verso'')
{{quote|ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ TO'''<big>ΥΤΟ Γ</big>'''Ε'''<big>ΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ</big>'''<br/> ΚΑΙ (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) ΕΛΗΛΥΘΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟ'''<big>ΣΜΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΜΑΡΤY-<br/big>'''<br/>ΡΗΣΩ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΩΝ '''<big>EΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕ</big>'''I-<br/>ΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ '''<big>ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ</big>'''<br/> Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ Κ'''<big>AΙ ΤΟΥΤO</big>''' <br/>ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ '''<big>ΤΟΥΣ Ι</big>'''ΟΥ-<br/>ΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔ'''<big>EΜΙ</big>'''ΑΝ<br/> ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ}}
{{quote|...
aAku Kingadalah I amraja. ForUntuk '''this I haveitulah beenAku bornlahir'''<br/>
anddan (foruntuk thisitulah) IAku havedatang comeke into thedalam '''world sodunia thatini, Isupaya wouldAku'''<br/>
testifymemberi tokesaksian thetentang truth.kebenaran; setiap Everyoneorang whoyang isberasal '''ofdari the truthkebenaran'''<br/>
hearsmendengarkan of me my voicesuara-Ku." '''Said toBerkata himkepada-Nya'''<br/>
PilatePilatus, "WhatApakah iskebenaran truthitu?" '''anddan thisdemikian'''<br/>
havingsudah saiddikatakannya, againkeluarlah heia wentlagi out untomendapatkan '''theorang-orang JewsYahudi'''<br/>
anddan saidberkata tokepada themmereka, "IAku findmendapati '''nottidak onesatupun'''<br/>
faultkesalahan in himpada-Nya."}}
Catatan:
* Nampaknya tidak ada cukup ruang untuk frasa yang diulangi "ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ" ("untuk itulah") di baris kedua pada bagian belakang, dan diduga kata-kata ini tidak sengaja dihilangkan dalam penyalinan ([[haplografi]]).
Tulisan tersebut memiliki spasi cukup lapang – bentuk huruf-hurufnya berukuran antara 0.3 dan 0.4 cm tingginya, baris-barisnya berjarak spasi kira-kira 0.5 cm, dan ada batas halaman 2 cm di bagian atas. C. H. Roberts berkomentar: ".. melihat dari spasi dan ukuran tulisan, rasanya tidak mungkin format ini dipengaruhi oleh pertimbangan ekonomi". Diduga manuskrip ini dimaksudkan untuk pembacaan kepada publik. Bila kodeks aslinya memang memuat seluruh Injil Yohanes, maka bukunya akan setebal 130 halaman, yaitu 33 lembaran papirus besar yang dilipat dan ditulis di kedua sisinya; berukuran sekitar 21 x 20 cm jika ditutup. Roberts mengamati sambungan yang dilekatkan secara vertikal sedikit di tepi dalam margin dan terlihat di bagian belakang, menandakan bahwa lembaran besar yang digunakan untuk membuat buku ini nampaknya dipersiapkan khusus, masing-masing dibuat dari 2 lembar berukuran standar kira-kira 21 cm x 16 cm, di mana bagian tengah yang lebih sempit kira-kira berukuran 21 cm x 8 cm membentuk rusuk buku. Roberts menggambarkan tulisan tangan tersebut "berat, bulat dan agak berlebihan", tetapi bukan hasil karya "penulis terlatih" ("''a practised scribe''", yaitu juru tulis profesional). Roberts mencatat komentar yang tidak lama berselang diucapkan oleh para penyunting [[Egerton Gospel]]; dan mengatakan hal serupa tentang <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> bahwa "ada unsur informal dalam pembuatannya dan tidak dimaksudkan sebagai penulisan indah, tetapi tetap hasil karya yang teliti".
Seluruhnya ada 114 huruf yang dapat terbaca pada kedua sisi fragmen, mengandung 18 dari 24 huruf dalam abjad Yunani; beta, zeta, xi, phi, chi, dan psi tidak muncul. Roberts mencatat bahwa penulisannya hati-hati dan memakan waktu lama, dengan tiap huruf diberi tinta dua kali, misalnya huruf sigma pada baris ke-3 di bagian depan. Beberapa huruf cenderung melenceng dari garis batas atas dan bawah suatu baris. Keanehan lain adalah dua bentuk berbeda dari huruf ''alfa''; sebagian besar dibentuk dengan lingkaran terpisah dan goresan diagonal, di mana goresannya memiliki lekukan pancing dekoratif yang khas; tetapi pada baris ke-4 dari bagian belakang ada huruf ''alfa'' yang lebih kecil, dibentuk dengan satu lingkaran spiral tunggal tanpa pancing dekoratif. Pengamatan ini menunjang dugaan bahwa si penulis adalah seorang terpelajar yang menulis dengan hati-hati, bukan seorang juru tulis profesional yang dibayar untuk menulis; sehingga, kadang kala, si penulis tanpa sengaja kembali ke bentuk tulisan tangan sehari-harinya.
<!--
There appears insufficient room for the repeated phrase (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) in the second line of the verso, and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through [[haplography]].
The writing is generously scaled – letter forms vary between 0.3 and 0.4 cm in height, lines are spaced approximately 0.5 cm apart, and there is a margin of 2 cm at the top. C. H. Roberts commented: ".. to judge from the spacing and the size of the text, it is unlikely that the format was affected by considerations of economy". This suggests that the manuscript was intended for public reading. If the original codex did indeed contain the entire text of the canonical Gospel of John, it would have constituted a single [[Paper quire|quire]] book of around 130 pages (i.e. 33 large folded papyrus sheets written on both sides); measuring approximately 21 by 20 cm when closed. Roberts noted a glued vertical join in the papyrus slightly inside the inner margin and visible on the verso, indicating that the large sheets used for the codex were likely to have been specially prepared for the purpose, each having been constructed from two standard sized sheets measuring approximately 21 cm by 16 cm, with a central narrower sheet approximately 21 cm by 8 cm constituting the spine. Roberts describes the handwriting as "heavy, rounded and rather elaborate", but nevertheless not the work of "a practised scribe" (i.e. not a professional bookhand). Roberts notes comments that had recently been made by the editors of the [[Egerton Gospel]]; and says similarly it could be said of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> that it "has a somewhat informal air about it and with no claims to fine writing is yet a careful piece of work".
In total, 114 legible letters are visible on the two sides of the fragment, representing 18 out of the 24 letters of the [[Greek Alphabet]]; beta, zeta, xi, phi, chi, and psi being missing. Roberts noted that the writing is painstaking and rather laboured, with individual letters apparently inked twice (e.g. sigma at line 3 of the recto). Several letters are inclined to stray away from the notional upper and lower writing lines. Another peculiarity is that there are two distinct forms of the letter alpha; most are formed from a separate loop and diagonal stroke, where the stroke has a distinctive decorative hook; but on the fourth line of the verso there is a smaller alpha formed by a single spiralling loop with no decorative hook. These observations support the supposition that the scribe was an educated person writing carefully, rather than a professional scribe writing to order; such that, on occasion, the writer inadvertently reverts to the letter forms of his smaller everyday hand.
In 1977, Roberts surveyed fourteen Christian papyri, comprising all the Christian manuscripts then commonly assessed as likely having a second century date and including <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>. He considered that only three of these texts had a calligraphic bookhand, such as was then standard in formal manuscripts of Greek literature, or in most Graeco-Jewish biblical scrolls. Of the other eleven, including <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>, he states that their scribes were:
It may be added that the codex of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>, with its good quality papyrus, wide margins, large clear upright letters, short lines, and bilinear writing, would have presented an overall appearance not far from that of professionally written books such as [[Papyrus 64|<math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>64</sup>]] or [[Papyrus 77|<math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>77</sup>]], even though its actual letter forms are not as fine, and are closer to documentary exemplars.
-->
== DatePerhitungan waktu ==
Signifikansi <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> tergantung dari dugaan waktu penulisan awal dan jarak geografisnya dari tempat penulisan asal Injil Yohanes, yang secara tradisional diyakini di kota [[Efesus]]. Karena fragmen ini terpisah dari tulisan asli paling sedikit melalui satu kali penyalinan, tanggal penulisan Injil Yohanes tentunya paling sedikit beberapa tahun sebelum perhitungan tanggal penulisan <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>. Lokasi fragmen di Mesir membuat waktu ini berjarak lebih lama, mulai dari penulisan naskah asli, sampai penyalinan di lokasi penemuan. Injil Yohanes dianggap paling awal dikutip oleh [[Yustinus Martir]], sehingga pasti ditulis sebelum tahun [[160]] M; tetapi banyak pakar Perjanjian Baru berpendapat penulisan <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> lebih awal dari itu, sehingga kemungkinan tanggal penulisan Injil itu menjadi mundur. John Rylands Library tetap berpegang pada anggapan Roberts bahwa <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> "dengan sejumlah keyakinan dapat diperkirakan berasal dari pertengahan pertama abad ke-2 Masehi",<ref>[http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/searchresources/guidetospecialcollections/stjohnfragment/ St John Fragment] John Rylands Library</ref> dan memberikan tahun "c. 125" dalam karya rujukan standar.
The significance of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> rests both upon its proposed early dating and upon its geographic dispersal from the presumed site of authorship; traditionally thought to have been [[Ephesus]]. As the fragment is removed from the autograph by at least one step of transmission, the date of authorship for the Gospel of John must be at least a few years prior to the dating of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>. The location of the fragment in Egypt extends that time even further, allowing for the dispersal of the documents from the point of authorship and transmission to the point of discovery. The Gospel of John is perhaps quoted by [[Justin Martyr]], and hence is highly likely to have been written before c. [[160]] CE; but many New Testament scholars have argued from the proposed dating of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> prior to this, that the latest possible date for the composition of the Gospel should be pushed back into the early decades of the second century – indeed not much later than the traditionally accepted date of c. 90 CE, or even before that.
<!--
Scepticism about the use of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> to date the Gospel of John (not about the fragment's authenticity) is based on two issues. First, the papyrus has been dated based on the handwriting alone, without the support of textual evidence. Secondly, like all other surviving early Gospel manuscripts, this fragment is not from a scroll but from a [[codex]]; a sewn and folded book not a roll. If it dates from the first half of the second century, this fragment would be amongst the earlier surviving examples of a literary codex. (Around [[90]] CE, [[Martial]] circulated his poems in codex form, presenting this as a novelty.) The year before Roberts published <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>, the [[British Museum]] library had acquired papyrus fragments of the [[Egerton Gospel]] which are also from a codex, and these were published in 1935. Since the text of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> is that of the canonical [[Gospel of John]], whereas the Egerton Gospel is not, there was considerable interest amongst biblical scholars as to whether <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> could be dated as the earlier of the two papyri.
<math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> is a literary text and, in common with almost all such papyri, has no explicit indicator of date. Proposing a date for it required comparison with dated texts, which tend to be documentary (contracts, petitions, letters) and, unlike <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>, are often the work of professional scribes. Roberts proposed four dated papyri as close comparators: Abb 34 (ca. 110-117 CE), P. Fayum 110 (94 CE), P. London 2078 (81-96 CE), and P. Oslo 22 (127 CE). Of these, P. Fayum 110 is the only one that shares the characteristic dual form of alpha found in <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>; while P. Oslo 22 is most similar in some of the more distinctive letter forms, e.g. eta, mu and iota. Roberts also suggested two literary texts as comparators: P. Berol. 6845 (a fragment of the [[Iliad]] estimated to date around 100 CE) which he suggested (other than in the form of the letter alpha) is "the closest parallel to our text that I have been able to find"; and the Egerton Gospel itself, which was then estimated to date around 150 CE. He stated that it had "most of the characteristics of our hand ... though in a less accentuated form". Roberts circulated his assessment to three fellow paleographers: [[Frederic G. Kenyon]], W. Schubart and [[Idris Bell|H. I. Bell]]; all concurred with his dating of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> in the first half of the 2nd century. Kenyon suggested another dated comparator in P. Flor I (153 CE); but Roberts did not consider the similarity to be very close, other than for particular letters, as the overall style of that hand was [[cursive]]. In the same year 1935, Roberts's assessment of date was supported by the independent studies of [[Gustav Adolf Deissmann|A. Deissmann]], who, while producing no actual evidence, suggested a date in the reigns of Trajan (98-117) or Hadrian (117-138).<ref>Deissmann, Adolf. "Ein Evangelienblatt aus den Tagen Hadrians." ''[[Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung]]''; 564, 3 Dezemb. 1935</ref> In 1936 the dating was supported by [[Ulrich Wilcken]] on the basis of a comparison between the hand of P52 and those of papyri in the extensive Apollonius archive which are dated 113-120.
Subsequently, a number of other comparator papyri have been suggested, notably P.Oxy. 2533, where a literary text dated to the early second century in a hand very close to <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> has been written on the back of a re-used document in a late first century business hand. In addition, the discovery of several other papyrus codices of the early second century suggested that this form of book was more common for literary texts at this date than had previously been assumed. Consequently, until the 1990s, the tendency was to suggest a date for <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> towards the earlier half of the range suggested by Roberts and his correspondents. However, a cautionary note was raised by the discovery that a papyrus fragment in Cologne constitutes part of the Egerton Gospel. In this fragment the letters gamma and kappa are separated by an apostrophe, a feature very rare in dated second century papyri; which accordingly implies a date for the Egerton Gospel closer to 200 CE - and indicates the perils of ascribing a date for a papyrus text of which only a small part of two pages survives.
The early date for <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> favoured by many [[New Testament]] scholars has been challenged by Andreas Schmidt, who favours a date around 170 AD, plus or minus twenty-five years; on the basis of a comparison with [[Chester Beatty Papyri|Chester Beatty Papyrus X]] and with the redated Egerton Gospel.<ref>A. Schmidt, "Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457," ''Archiv für Papyrusforschung'' '''35''' (1989:11–12).</ref> Brent Nongbri<ref>Nongbri, p. 48.</ref> has criticized all attempts to establish a paleographic date for papyri like <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> within such narrow ranges. Nongbri collected and published a wide range of dated comparator manuscripts; demonstrating that, although there are plentiful examples of hands similar to that of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> in the early second century, two later dated papyri also had similar hands (P. Mich. inv. 5336, dated to 152 CE; and P.Amh. 2.78, an example first suggested by E. G. Turner, that dates to 184 CE). Nongbri suggests that this implied that older styles of handwriting might persist much longer than some scholars had assumed, and that a prudent margin of error must allow a still wider range of possible dates for the papyrus:
{{quote|What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel.}}
Nevertheless, most scholars continue to favour the earlier dating, though the possibility of a later date cannot be entirely discounted. The John Rylands Library continues to maintain Roberts's assessment of the date of <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>, that it "may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D.",<ref>[http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/searchresources/guidetospecialcollections/stjohnfragment/ St John Fragment] John Rylands Library</ref> and the date is given as c. 125 in standard reference works.
== Text-critical significance ==
If the early dating of the papyrus is in fact correct, then the fact that the fragment is from a [[codex]] rather than a [[scroll]] would testify to the very early adoption of this mode of writing amongst Christians, in stark contrast to the invariable practice of contemporary [[Judaism]]. Furthermore, an assessment of the length of 'missing' text between the recto and verso readings corresponds with that in the counterpart canonical Gospel of John; and hence confirms that there are unlikely to have been substantial additions or deletions in this whole portion. Other than two [[itacism]]s, and in the probable omission of the second ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ from line 2 of the verso, <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup> agrees with the Alexandrian text base. In lines 4 and 5 of the recto the reconstructed text reads ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ in agreement with [[Papyrus 66|<math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>66</sup>]] and with the [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|Codex Vaticanus]] whereas the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], [[Codex Alexandrinus]] and the [[Majority Text]] all have the alternative word order; ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ, but this is hardly a significant variant. Since this fragment is small – about nine by six centimeters – it cannot be proven that it comes from a full copy of the ''John'' that we know; but it may be presumed that the original text was at least of near full gospel length to be worth the extra care and time required in writing in codex form.
|
