The "Magdalen" papyrus (/ˈmɔːdlɪn/, MAWD-lin)[1] 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 Uncial'" 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.
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.
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 c. 200, which was confirmed by three other leading papyrologists: Harold Bell, T. C. Skeat and E. G. Turner.[2] 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.[3]
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].”[4] If 𝔓4 was part of this codex, then the codex may have been written roughly 100 years prior or earlier.[5] Comfort and Barret also show that this 𝔓4/64/67 has affinities with a number of the late 2nd-century papyri.[6]
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."[7] The Novum Testamentum Graece, a standard reference for the Greek witnesses, lists 𝔓4 and 𝔓64/67 separately, giving the former a date of the 3rd century, while the latter is assigned c. 200.[8] Charlesworth has concluded 'that 𝔓64+67 and 𝔓4, though written by the same scribe, are not from the same ... codex.'[9] 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."[10]
^. First Names Dictionary on AskOxford.com. Archived from the original on 7 June 2011.
^Colin Roberts, An Early Papyrus pp. 233–237; Nongbri, God's Library 265-267
^See Head, Peter M. "The Date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64): A Response to C. P. Thiede" 2010-11-25 at the Wayback Machine, (1995) Tyndale Bulletin 46. Retrieved on 25 October 2013
^Colin Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt pp. 8
^Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2001), pp. 50–53
^i.e. P. Oxy. 224, 661, 2334, 2404 2750, P. Ryl. 16, 547, and P. Vindob G 29784
^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
^Nestle-Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece (1997). Barbara and Kurt Aland, eds. NA27 Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. pp. 684, 687
^Barker, "The Dating of New Testament Papyri," 578
Referencesedit
Barker, Don. "The Dating of New Testament Papyri." New Testament Studies 57 (2011), 571–582, doi:10.1017/S0028688511000129
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, doi:10.1017/S002868850700029X
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, doi:10.1017/S0028688500022475
Thiede, Carsten Peter (1995). "Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory–Aland P64). A Reappraisal" (PDF). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 105: 13–20. Retrieved 2006-12-13.
Imagesedit
"Liste Handschriften". Münster: Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Retrieved 26 August 2011.
"The Magdalen Papryus: possibly the earliest known fragments of the New Testament". Oxford: Magdalen College. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
External linksedit
Peter M. Head, : 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.
"Liste Handschriften". Münster: Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Retrieved 26 August 2011.
"The Magdalen Papryus: possibly the earliest known fragments of the New Testament". Oxford: Magdalen College. Retrieved 10 November 2014.
April 11, 2024
magdalen, papyrus, magdalen, papyrus, ɔː, mawd, purchased, luxor, egypt, 1901, reverend, charles, bousfield, huleatt, 1863, 1908, identified, greek, fragments, portions, gospel, matthew, chapter, presented, them, magdalen, college, oxford, where, they, catalog. The Magdalen papyrus ˈ m ɔː d l ɪ n MAWD lin 1 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 Uncial 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 Papyrus 64New Testament manuscriptSign𝔓64TextMatthew 26 23 31DateLate 2nd 3rd centuryScriptGreekFoundCoptos EgyptNow atBarcelona Fundacion Sant Lluc Evangelista Inv Nr 1 Oxford Magdalen College Gr 18TypeAlexandrian text typeCategoryIThe 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 Contents 1 Date 2 See also 3 Notes 4 References 5 Images 6 External linksDate edit𝔓64 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 c 200 which was confirmed by three other leading papyrologists Harold Bell T C Skeat and E G Turner 2 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 fur 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 amp 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 3 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 4 If 𝔓4 was part of this codex then the codex may have been written roughly 100 years prior or earlier 5 Comfort and Barret also show that this 𝔓4 64 67 has affinities with a number of the late 2nd century papyri 6 nbsp Magdalen PapyrusComfort and Barret tend to claim an earlier date for many manuscripts included in their volume than might be allowed by other palaeographers 7 The Novum Testamentum Graece a standard reference for the Greek witnesses lists 𝔓4 and 𝔓64 67 separately giving the former a date of the 3rd century while the latter is assigned c 200 8 Charlesworth has concluded that 𝔓64 67 and 𝔓4 though written by the same scribe are not from the same codex 9 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 10 See also editList of New Testament papyriNotes edit Magdalen Name First Names Dictionary on AskOxford com Archived from the original on 7 June 2011 Colin Roberts An Early Papyrus pp 233 237 Nongbri God s Library 265 267 See Head Peter M The Date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew P Magd Gr 17 P64 A Response to C P Thiede Archived 2010 11 25 at the Wayback Machine 1995 Tyndale Bulletin 46 Retrieved on 25 October 2013 Colin Roberts Manuscript Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt pp 8 Philip Wesley Comfort and David P Barrett The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts Wheaton Ill Tyndale House 2001 pp 50 53 i e P Oxy 224 661 2334 2404 2750 P Ryl 16 547 and P Vindob G 29784 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 Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 1997 Barbara and Kurt Aland eds NA27 Stuttgart Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft pp 684 687 Charlesworth P64 67 and P4 604 Barker The Dating of New Testament Papyri 578References editBarker Don The Dating of New Testament Papyri New Testament Studies 57 2011 571 582 doi 10 1017 S0028688511000129 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 doi 10 1017 S002868850700029X 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 doi 10 1017 S0028688500022475 Thiede Carsten Peter 1995 Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 Gregory Aland P64 A Reappraisal PDF Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 105 13 20 Retrieved 2006 12 13 Images edit Liste Handschriften Munster Institute for New Testament Textual Research Retrieved 26 August 2011 The Magdalen Papryus possibly the earliest known fragments of the New Testament Oxford Magdalen College Retrieved 27 July 2015 External links editPeter 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 Munster 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 Liste Handschriften Munster Institute for New Testament Textual Research Retrieved 26 August 2011 The Magdalen Papryus possibly the earliest known fragments of the New Testament Oxford Magdalen College Retrieved 10 November 2014 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Magdalen papyrus amp oldid 1208989297, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
