What is the Oldest Manuscript of the New Testament?

For years the answer to this question was easy: P52, a manuscript identified and housed in Manchester, handsomely dated to the early 2nd century. C.H. Roberts wrote in the original publication of this fragment

‘On the whole we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which P. Ryl. Gk. 457 was most probably written—a judgment I should be much more loth to pronounce were it not supported by Sir Frederic Kenyon, Dr. W. Schubart and Dr. H. I. Bell who have seen photographs of the text and whose experience and authority in these matters are unrivalled’ (C.H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935], 16).

A lot has happened since then in the study of Greek palaeography and with the increase in readily available collections of digital images and refined classification one would assume that the experts are able to form an even more informed opinion now than they were in the 1930s. A 2012 article by Orsini and Clarysse provides exactly this re-evaluation. Their method is solid and responsible, both scholars have a tremendous track record, and in general I don’t find much to disagree with, even though in some of the finer distinctions Orsini and Clarysse make I cannot always follow them. Their evaluation of the date is not far off from what Roberts came up with in giving the range 125-175 for P52. So is P52 still the earliest fragment of the New Testament?

Possibly, but looking through the results presented by Orsini and Clarysse there is another candidate, P104, an interesting fragment of Matthew 21, published in 1997. This papyrus receives a date 100-200. Some particular scripts are easier to pin down than others and that is why P104 has a span of a century, whilst P52 only half a century. So we have P52 and P104 both dated by a range that has its median in the centre of the second century (it may be earlier, it may be later).

So what is the oldest manuscript? Well, there are two candidates, P52 of John 18, and P104 of Matthew 21; the former oldest manuscript has become part of a double act (two times 52 is 104).

P52 (left) and P104 (right)

**Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis 88, no. 4 (2012): 443-74.

P. Oxy 4959 - some notes

P. Oxy 4959 is a very interesting documentary letter of the second century - interesting at lots of levels in terms of content, style, grammar, compositional process (corrections and cross through), etc. (for info, text and ET see here) But it is also interesting because it shows some interesting word division, and even clearer marked spaces between sentences (cf. Dirk’s post from a couple of days ago), and uses filler marks at the end of lines (to keep a right hand justification - lines 4, 14, 17, 19) - not dissimilar in function at least to some NT literary texts (e.g. P66 and Sinaiticus).

TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism vol. 19 (2014)

The 19th volume of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (2014) is now complete. A number of new articles have just been published on-line. The volume contains three full-length articles, two shorter articles ("notes"), one review article and plenty of book reviews.

The editors welcome new submissions to the journal (see instructions here).

Here is the contents with links and abstracts:

Volume 19 (2014)

Articles

Lincoln H. Blumell, Luke 22:43–44: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation or an Apologetic Omission?

Abstract: This article examines the text-critical history of Luke 22:43–44 and argues, primarily on external grounds, that it is more likely that this passage was deliberately excised from Luke rather than interpolated. Along these lines it argues that this passage was excised from some early manuscripts of Luke prior to the end of the third century for apologetic reasons. Additionally, this article will question the anti-docetic interpolation theory, which is seemingly held by the majority of interpreters of this passage, and will argue that this is not the only way to understand the text-critical evidence.

Nathan Thiel, The Old but New Command in 1 John 2:7-8? A Proposed Emendation

Abstract: In 1 John 2:7, the author of the epistle says that he is not writing the recipients a new command, but in the very next verse he seems to do an about face, now writing that the command is indeed new. According to most interpreters, this reversal can be attributed to the creativity of the author. This essay argues, in contrast, that the paradox is accidental, introduced through a primitive error in textual transmission. It proposes that 1 John 2:8 originally began πάλιν γράφω ὑμῖν (“Again I am writing to you”) and that ἐντολὴν καινήν (“new command”) was mistakenly imported into v. 8 early on in the letter’s textual history. By emending the text, we are able to resolve the grammatical and contextual anomalies of the present reading.

Gareth Wearne, ‫ קרנים מידו לו‬and ‫:מימינו אשדת למו‬ Reading Habakkuk 3:4 and Deuteronomy 33:2 in Light of One Another

Abstract: Habakkuk 3:4 and Deuteronomy 33:2 have long resisted straightforward interpretation. However, both verses apparently belong to the same tradition of southern theophany and both share a similar syntax and imagery. This short paper argues that both verses can be used to shed light on each other, and that the unusual syntax of the MT preserves an ancient idiomatic expression.

Notes

Hans Förster, Μαρία and Μαριάμ in John’s Gospel in the Novum Testamentum Graece

Abstract: The name Mary was popular and a number of different women with this name are mentioned in the Gospel of John. The text of the Gospel of John in the Novum Testamentum Graece uses in this context the Hellenized and the transcribed form of the name “Mary” rather unsystematically. A scrutiny of the evidence as presented in the manuscripts points to a problem: cases where the transliterated form is used as accusative might be not so much a decision to use a transliterated form but a misspelled form of the Greek accusative—exchange of the nasals is a known phenomenon. That is, the distribution of forms of the name might in part be due to phonetics and incorrect spellings and not to a decision to use one of the two forms of the name. A possible conclusion might be that the Greek text of the Gospel of John should present only the Hellenized form and relegate the transcribed form to the apparatus (which in quite a few instances would accord with the fact that the Hellenized form may be better attested than the transcribed form).

Dirk Jongkind, 059 (0215) and Mark 15:28

Abstract: What remains of this parchment codex suggests that it lacked Mark 15:28.

Review Articles

Georg Gäbel, A Fresh Look at the Early Text

Abstract: A review article on The Early Text of the New Testament (Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger, eds).

Reviews

Ariel Feldman, The Rewritten Joshua Scrolls from Qumran: Texts, Translations, and Commentary (Marcus Sigismund, reviewer)

Kim Haines-Eitzen, The Gendered Palimpsest: Women, Writing, and Representation in Early Christianity (Thomas J. Kraus, reviewer)

Margaret Jaques (ed.), Klagetraditionen: Form und Funktion der Klage in den Kulturen der Antike (Matthias Millard, reviewer)

Timothy M. Law, Origenes Orientalis: The Preservation of Origen’s Hexapla in the Syrohexapla of 3 Kingdoms (Martin Meiser, reviewer)

Kathleen Maxwell, Between Constantinople and Rome: An Illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book (Paris gr. 54) and the Union of Churches (J. K. Elliott, reviewer)

Reinhard Müller, Juha Pakkala, and Bas ter Haar Romeny, Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible (Andrew W. Dyck, reviewer)

A. Piquer Otero and P. A. Torijano Morales (eds.), Textual Criticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera (Bennie H. Reynolds III, reviewer)

Richard Simon, Critical History of the Text of the New Testament: Wherein is Established the Truth of the Acts on which the Christian Religion is Based (Translated, Introduced and Annotated by Andrew Hunwick) (Jan Krans, reviewer)

Alison S. Welsby, A Textual Study of Family 1 in the Gospel of John (Thomas J. Kraus, reviewer)

Ryan D. Wettlaufer, No Longer Written: The Use of Conjectural Emendation in the Restoration of the Text of the New Testament: The Epistle of James as a Case Study (Jan Krans, reviewer)

Andrew T. Wilburn, Materia Magica: The Archaeology of Magic in Roman Egypt, Cyprus, and Spain: New Texts from Ancient Cultures (Thomas J. Kraus, reviewer)

Here and there

Brice Jones has found a papyrus fragment of John for sale on ebay - see here (it all looks plausible to me). [not for sale anymore - withdrawn from the auction]

Winchester Cathedral is trying to recover illuminations stolen from the twelfth-century Winchester Bible.

The British Library has published a list of the 1220 manuscripts with new digital images in A New Giant List. Meanwhile the British Library is now allowing personal digital photography of items in the collection (applauded by Roger Pearse).

Among the top selling books and manuscripts at auction in 2014 were a number of biblical related manuscripts, including the editio princeps of the Hebrew Torah printed on vellum ($3,871,845)

Duke University is returning a tenth-century Greek manuscript to Greece (not sure what it is a manuscript of, doesn’t look like a NT, but I could be wrong).

Meanwhile some responses to the ill-informed on-line article about the Bible at “Newsweek” can be found from Mike Kruger (two parts, with comments from the author of the article); Ben Witherington; Darrell Bock (two parts); Pete Enns; Dan Wallace [up-dated here] (I’m not sure how this online “Newsweek” relates to the respected old print magazine, the ownership looks murky). 

Greek Manuscripts with Word Division

Everyone familiar with the early Greek majuscules is used to the absence of word division, which virtually forces you to vocalise every syllable in order to make sense of the text. Latin never had this problem, and I assume that whenever we have (late) majuscules that actually contain consistent word division this is under influence of a Latin parallel. Examples are

G(012) Boernerianus:



F(010) Augiensis:


and based on the previous two, I would probable add 0130:


The current Latin text of 0130 is a late one and is therefore, I guess, the later layer of a re-used manuscript. The Greek in the margin is then part of the original version. Based on the word division and the font that is identical to the two examples above, I would assume that this manuscripts comes from the same Greek - Latin stable. All ninth century, all Swiss. Parker (Bezae, 66) agrees and informs me that the Latin part of the original 0130 was 'quite certainly' never written.

Why Latin script adopted word divisions and Greek did not till very late is still a mystery to me.

"Misquoting Manuscripts? The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Revisited"

Since I noted that someone had scanned an old essay of mine, “Misquoting Manuscripts? The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Revisited“ which appeared in The Making of Christianity: Conflicts, Contacts, and Constructions: Essays in Honor of Bengt Holmberg (ed. M. Zetterholm and S. Byrskog; CBNTS 47; Eisenbrauns, 2012), and made it available on the internet without my permission, I thought I might just upload it to my own page on academia.edu.

 To whet your appetite, here is a paragraph from the introduction:

Space does not permit me to go through all of Ehrman’s examples of orthodox corruption in a systematic fashion. In the following I will therefore restrict myself to a selection of examples treated by Ehrman in one of the largest chapters of his monograph, those passages that, according to his claims, reflect anti-adoptionistic corruption. Nevertheless, I believe that the result of this survey, based on a relatively large number of passages is quite representative. I will demonstrate that Ehrman’s interpretation of the textual evidence in these passages is seriously defective. I should emphasize that my aim is not to prove that the New Testament textual tradition is unaffected by “orthodox corruption,” although I think this factor plays a minor role. Instead I attempt to prove that, on a closer inspection, many of Ehrman’s examples do not apply to the issue at all, and that often there are other, more plausibe explanations for the textual variation.

The essay will soon appear on the resource page of this blog, which you should check out here.