Magdalen papyrus

The "Magdalen" papyrus (Template:IPAc-en, Template:Respell)<ref name=Names>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> was purchased in Luxor, Egypt in 1901 by Reverend Charles Bousfield Huleatt (1863–1908), who identified the Greek fragments as portions of the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 26:23 and 31) and presented them to Magdalen College, Oxford, where they are catalogued as P. Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland 𝔓⁶⁴) from which they acquired their name. When the fragments were published by Colin Henderson Roberts in 1953, illustrated with a photograph, the hand was characterized as "an early predecessor of the so-called 'Biblical UncialTemplate:'" which began to emerge towards the end of the 2nd century. The uncial style is epitomised by the later biblical Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Comparative paleographical analysis has remained the methodological key for dating the manuscript, but there is no consensus on the dating of the papyrus. Estimates have ranged from the 1st century to the 4th century AD. Papyrologist Orsolina Montevecchi, who was the President of the International Papyrologist Association, supported Carsten Thiede's dating of the Magdalen Papyrus to 66CE.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=tDgqAQAAMAAJ&q=orsolina+montevecchi+president+international+papyrologist+association&dq=orsolina+montevecchi+president+international+papyrologist+association&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUsO38jZmNAxUG38kDHbMcN3gQ6AF6BAgJEAM#orsolina%20montevecchi%20president%20international%20papyrologist%20association</ref>

The fragments are written on both sides, indicating they came from a codex rather than a scroll. More fragments, published in 1956 by Ramon Roca-Puig, cataloged as P. Barc. Inv. 1 (Gregory-Aland 𝔓⁶⁷), were determined by Roca-Puig and Roberts to come from the same codex as the Magdalen fragments, a view which has remained the scholarly consensus.

Date

𝔓⁶⁴ was originally given a 3rd-century date by Charles Huleatt, who donated the Manuscript to Magdalen College. Papyrologist A. S. Hunt then studied the manuscript and dated it to the early 4th century. After initially preferring a 3rd or possibly 4th century dating for the papyrus, Colin Roberts published the manuscript and gave it a dating of Template:Circa, which was confirmed by three other leading papyrologists: Harold Bell, T. C. Skeat and E. G. Turner.<ref>Colin Roberts, An Early Papyrus pp. 233–237; Nongbri, God's Library 265-267</ref> In late 1994, Carsten Peter Thiede proposed redating the Magdalen papyrus to the middle of the 1st century (AD 37 to 70). This attracted considerable publicity, as journalists interpreted the claim optimistically. Thiede's official article appeared in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik in 1995. A version edited for the layman was co-written with Matthew d'Ancona and presented as The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996. (also published as: Eyewitness to Jesus, 1996, New York: Doubleday). Thiede's redating of the papyrus was based on comparative analysis of the script with selected samples from Egypt and Palestine. He claimed to see similarities between the script of the Magdalen papyrus and that of dated documents from the 1st century CE, such as P.Oxy. II 246 (66 CE). Thiede's hypothesis has been viewed with scepticism by nearly all established papyrologists and biblical scholars.<ref>See Head, Peter M. "The Date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64): A Response to C. P. Thiede" Template:Webarchive, (1995) Tyndale Bulletin 46. Retrieved on 25 October 2013</ref>

Philip Comfort and David Barret in their book Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts argue for a more general date of 150–175 for the manuscript, and also for 𝔓⁴ and 𝔓⁶⁷, which they argue came from the same codex. 𝔓⁴ was used as stuffing for the binding of "a codex of Philo, written in the later 3rd century and found in a jar which had been walled up in a house at Coptos [in 250]."<ref>Colin Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt pp. 8</ref> If 𝔓⁴ was part of this codex, then the codex may have been written roughly 100 years prior or earlier.<ref>Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2001), pp. 50–53</ref> Comfort and Barret also show that this 𝔓^4/64/67 has affinities with a number of the late 2nd-century papyri.<ref>i.e. P. Oxy. 224, 661, 2334, 2404 2750, P. Ryl. 16, 547, and P. Vindob G 29784</ref>

File:Magdalen Papyrus.jpg

Magdalen Papyrus

Comfort and Barret "tend to claim an earlier date for many manuscripts included in their volume than might be allowed by other palaeographers."<ref>Robinson, Maurice A. Review "Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, eds. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts" (2001) TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism v. 8</ref> The Novum Testamentum Graece, a standard reference for the Greek witnesses, lists 𝔓⁴ and 𝔓^64/67 together, giving them a date of c. 200.<ref>Nestle-Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece (1997). Barbara and Kurt Aland, eds. NA27 Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. pp. 684, 687</ref> Charlesworth has concluded 'that 𝔓⁶⁴⁺⁶⁷ and 𝔓⁴, though written by the same scribe, are not from the same ... codex.'<ref>Charlesworth, "P64+67 and P4," 604</ref> The most recent and thorough palaeographic assessment of the papyrus concluded that "until further evidence is forthcoming perhaps a date from mid-II to mid-IV should be assigned to the codex."<ref>Barker, "The Dating of New Testament Papyri," 578</ref>

Thiede's Re-dating to 66CE

Carsten Peter Thiede ran paleographical and then forensic scientific analysis on the Magdalen Papyrus to arrive at a date of 66CE.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=tDgqAQAAMAAJ&q=orsolina+montevecchi+president+international+papyrologist+association&dq=orsolina+montevecchi+president+international+papyrologist+association&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUsO38jZmNAxUG38kDHbMcN3gQ6AF6BAgJEAM#orsolina%20montevecchi%20president%20international%20papyrologist%20association</ref><ref>https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/random042/95048987.html</ref>

The evidence for the date of about 66CE for the Magdalen Papyrus is based on a combination of styles that were uniquely used in exact form in the middle first century CE as well as a specific dated document that uses that same combination of styles.<ref>https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/random042/95048987.html</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA11&dq=magdalen+papyrus+eta%C2%A0&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB9oPKlJmNAxWAmYkEHROeKBYQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus%20eta%C2%A0&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=iSulAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT391&dq=magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8xuiCoZ-NAxWvv4kEHYE8AHU4HhDoAXoECAoQAw#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus&f=false</ref>

1) The Magdalen Papyrus is written in a style that was a precursor to the biblical uncial of the second century CE which is the letters being drawn equally thick horizontally and vertically and not alternating between thick and thin stroke common after the second century CE.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA11&dq=magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDze20n5-NAxVuv4kEHb7hIikQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=Precursor&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=J6ymDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA287&dq=philip+comfort+uncial+thick+vertical+strokes&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwitp_b0kJmNAxX5GtAFHfWrAZoQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=philip%20comfort%20uncial%20thick%20vertical%20strokes&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=SxdkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=letters+touching+magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFrPvlnZ-NAxWxlYkEHcrHCGIQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=letters%20touching%20magdalen%20papyrus&f=false</ref>

2) The letters touch or nearly touch one another which was a common style in the first century CE but not later centuries.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqR6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT74&dq=thiede+eyewitness+to+Jesus+zierstil&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3hIGzipmNAxVOAHkGHZALJXMQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=thiede%20eyewitness%20to%20Jesus%20zierstil&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA11&dq=magdalen+papyrus+eta%C2%A0&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB9oPKlJmNAxWAmYkEHROeKBYQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus%20eta%C2%A0&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=SxdkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=letters+touching+magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFrPvlnZ-NAxWxlYkEHcrHCGIQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=letters%20touching%20magdalen%20papyrus&f=false</ref>

3) The document uses a form of Zierstil that went out of use after the middle of the first century CE.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqR6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT74&dq=thiede+eyewitness+to+Jesus+zierstil&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3hIGzipmNAxVOAHkGHZALJXMQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=thiede%20eyewitness%20to%20Jesus%20zierstil&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=iSulAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT391&dq=magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8xuiCoZ-NAxWvv4kEHYE8AHU4HhDoAXoECAoQAw#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus&f=false</ref>

4) Herculaneum style Eta's which were used until the middle of the first century CE that are used on papyri from that area, 7Q6, Aristophanes papyrus is also used on the Magdalen papyrus<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA11&dq=magdalen+papyrus+eta%C2%A0&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB9oPKlJmNAxWAmYkEHROeKBYQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus%20eta%C2%A0&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA11&dq=magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDze20n5-NAxVuv4kEHb7hIikQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA11&dq=magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDze20n5-NAxVuv4kEHb7hIikQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=Aristophanes%20&f=false</ref>

5) The text is distinctly bilinear with 2 exception letters as was common until the first century CE.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA11&dq=magdalen+papyrus+eta%C2%A0&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB9oPKlJmNAxWAmYkEHROeKBYQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus%20eta%C2%A0&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=p+oxy+246+magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS0tTDnp-NAxVPwvACHYdzDQsQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>

6) The general appearance and individual letters match papyri from the first century CE.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=iSulAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT391&dq=magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8xuiCoZ-NAxWvv4kEHYE8AHU4HhDoAXoECAoQAw#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA11&dq=magdalen+papyrus+eta%C2%A0&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB9oPKlJmNAxWAmYkEHROeKBYQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus%20eta%C2%A0&f=false</ref>

7) Another document uses the same combination of styles as Magdalen papyrus and it dates to 66CE.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_ak3KqUEdNYC&pg=PA11&dq=magdalen+papyrus+eta%C2%A0&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB9oPKlJmNAxWAmYkEHROeKBYQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=magdalen%20papyrus%20eta%C2%A0&f=false</ref> For example P Oxy 246 letters are also equally thick vertically and horizontally, distinctly bi-linear with few exceptions, letters have similar amount of ligatures, zierstil or hooked style also individual letters, formation of letters and overall appearance match the Magdalen papyrus. This indicates the scribes who wrote both these texts around the same time when the exact same combination of styles was used and this is internally dated to 66CE.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=oO4RXjgiy-IC&pg=PA13&dq=66AD+Magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwily-7rop-NAxW-hIkEHWwiO3w4ChDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=66AD%20Magdalen%20papyrus&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=I5r9KlET6jwC&pg=PA164&dq=66AD+Magdalen+papyrus&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAla28op-NAxXLj4kEHUieD2kQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=66AD%20Magdalen%20papyrus&f=false</ref>

Papyrologist Orsolina Montevecchi the President of the International Papyrologist Association, backed Thiede's re-dating of the papyrus to 66CE. Furthermore, the results of Thiede's use of forensic science in re-dating the papyrus was met with unanimous approval at the 21st Congress of the International Papyrologist Association.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=ddGLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&dq=thiede+%22unanimous+approval%22+magdalen&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirvJmrmJmNAxUNjokEHRF3EWIQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=thiede%20%22unanimous%20approval%22%20magdalen&f=false</ref>

See also

• List of New Testament papyri

References

• Barker, Don. "The Dating of New Testament Papyri." New Testament Studies 57 (2011), 571–582, {{#invoke:doi|main}}
• Charlesworth, S. D. "T. C. Skeat, P64+67 and P4, and the Problem of Fibre Orientation in Codicological Reconstruction," New Testament Studies 53, 582–604, {{#invoke:doi|main}}
• Nongbri, Brent. God's Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018.
• Skeat, T. C. "The Oldest Manuscript Of The Four Gospels?" New Testament Studies 43 (1997), 1–34, {{#invoke:doi|main}}
• Template:Cite journal

Images

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

External links

• Peter M. Head, "The date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew: A Response to C. P. Thiede": published in Tyndale Bulletin 46 (1995) pp. 251–285; the article suggests that he has both overestimated the amount of stylistic similarity between P64 and several Palestinian Greek manuscripts and underestimated the strength of the scholarly consensus of a date around AD 200.
• University of Münster, New Testament Transcripts Prototype. Select P64/67 from 'manuscript descriptions' box
• T. C. Skeat, The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?, in: T. C. Skeat and J. K. Elliott, The Collected Biblical Writings of T. C. Skeat, Brill 2004, pp. 158–179.
• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}