World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Papyrus 67

Article Id: WHEBN0020502792
Reproduction Date:

Title: Papyrus 67  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Codex Vaticanus, Biblical manuscript
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Papyrus 67

The "Magdalen" papyrus 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 cataloged as P. Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland \mathfrak{P}64) and whence they have their name. When the fragments were finally published by Colin H. 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: the consensus is ca AD 200.

The fragments are written on both sides, leading scholars to think that 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 \mathfrak{P}67), 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

\mathfrak{P}64 was originally given a 3rd-century date by Charles Huleatt, the one who donated the Manuscript to Magdalen College, and then papyrologist A. S. Hunt studied the manuscript and dated it to the early 4th century. But in reaction to what he thought was far too late a dating for the manuscript, Colin Roberts published the manuscript and gave it a dating of ca. 200, which was confirmed by three other leading papyrologists: Harold Bell, T. C. Skeat and E. G. Turner,[1] and this has been the general accepted date of \mathfrak{P}64 since.

But in late 1994, considerable publicity surrounded Carsten Peter Thiede's redating of the Magdalen papyrus to the middle of the 1st century (37 to 70 A.D.), optimistically interpreted by journalists. His official article appeared in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik the following year. The text for the layman was cowritten 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 re-dating has generally been viewed with skepticism by established Biblical scholars. (For example, Peter M. Head in Tyndale Bulletin 46, 1995.) [2]

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 \mathfrak{P}4 and \mathfrak{P}67, which they argue came from the same codex. \mathfrak{P}4 was used as stuffing for the binding of “a codex of Philo, written in the later third century and found in a jar which had been walled up in a house at Coptos [in 250].”[3] If \mathfrak{P}4 was part of this codex, then the codex may have been written roughly 100 years prior or earlier.[4] Comfort and Barret also show that this \mathfrak{P}4/64/67 has affinities with a number of the late 2nd century papyri.[5]

Comfort and Barret "tend to claim an earlier date for many manuscripts included in their volume than might be allowed by other palaeographers."[6] The Novum Testamentum Graece, a standard reference for the Greek witnesses, lists \mathfrak{P}4 and \mathfrak{P}64/67 separately, giving the former a date of the 3rd century, while the latter is assigned ca. 200.[7] Most recently Charlesworth has concluded 'that \mathfrak{P}64+67 and \mathfrak{P}4, though written by the same scribe, are not from the same ... codex.'[8]

See also

Notes

References

  • Charlesworth, SD (2007) 10.1017/S002868850700029X

Images

  • p64 verso
  • Literal Translation of the Original Greek New Testament

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) p. 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, , Brill 2004, pp. 158–179.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.