From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 14 1995 - 14:52:35 EDT
Here, cited with Sigrid Petersen's permission is her discussion of the
fragment and Thiede's argument regarding same, reposted from Ioudaios-L,
May 24, 1995:
====================
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 01:10:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sigrid Peterson <petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
To: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
Subject: Re: Matthew fragment
Message-ID: <199505240510.BAA16852@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
The following "article" is Copyright 1995 Sigrid Peterson, all rights
reserved, and may be quoted only with permission of the author.
The following has been prepared without checking the corrections in
Thiede's article which has also been published in the Tyndale Bulletin. I
have appreciated the nudging from Dierdre Good, and the opportunity to
discuss Roberts's and Thiede's views with Dr. Robert Kraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am writing in reply to Dierdre Good's nudging and to requests on
ioudaios-l for some (further) discussion of Carsten P. Thiede's
reassessment of three fragments of a manuscript of Matthew.
The fragments Thiede discusses are all from P. Magdalen Greek 17
(reclassified from P. Magdalen Greek 18), and are designated as {P}64 in
the list of codices in my Nestle-Aland 26 Greek-Latin NT. There it is dated
"ca. 200," in accordance with Colin Roberts's publication and redating of
the fragment, to be found in Harvard Theological Review 46, 1953, pp.
233-7, plate [HTR]. Thiede's article is called "Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17
(Gregory-Aland {P}64): A Reappraisal," and appears in Vol. 105 of
Zeitschrift fu%r Paleographie und Epigraphik, pp. 13-20, and Plate IX.
(ZPE)
I. FULL ARGUMENT.
As I understand the varied news accounts, Thiede called a press conference
in December of 1994 to announce his forthcoming publication of a first
century c.e. fragment of the Gospel of Matthew in a German journal of
papyrology. The fragments were a) newly redated by paleography to the first
century c.e., around 70 c.e.; b) contained a "stichometrically-plausible"
instance of the nomen sacrum IS in fr. 1, recto, line 1, Mt 26.31; and c)
therefore, first century followers of Jesus thought of him as divine, as
bearing a name requiring special treatment in gospel accounts.
II. ZPE ARGUMENT
In his article in ZPE, Thiede does not address the implications of his
redating and reconstructions of the {P}Magdalen Gr. 17 fragments. The
fragments Thiede discusses are all from P. Magdalen Greek 17 (reclassified
from P. Magdalen Greek 18), and are designated as {P}64 in the list of
codices in my Nestle-Aland 26 Greek-Latin NT. There it is dated "ca. 200,"
in accordance with Colin Roberts's publication and redating of the
fragment, to be found in Harvard Theological Review 46, 1953, pp. 233-7,
plate [HTR]. Thiede's article is called "Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17
(Gregory-Aland {P}64): A Reappraisal," and appears in Vol. 105 of
Zeitschrift fu%r Paleographie und Epigraphik, pp. 13-20, and Plate IX.
(ZPE).
There is no argument or discussion in the ZPE article of point c) above.
Such a claim *does seem to have been made by Thiede in his press
conference, in some fashion. In turn, the media have omitted any critical
distinctions and said things like, "new papyrus fragment shows that
followers of Jesus knew he was divine."
Someone associated with ZPE responded to mention of the flap on the papy-l
list by noting that Thiede had put together some material that deserved to
be aired. This is indeed the case. In the article Thiede confined himself
to the following points:
* The fragments comprising {P}64, formerly known as {P}Magdalen Gr. 18,
and so listed in Van Haelst's <i>Catalogue</>, must be renumbered as Gr. 17
instead. Thiede's description of the error is not clear, but perhaps
relates to his request to view Gr. 18, which turned out to be a tiny
unrelated scrap. The Magdalen College Library now gives {P}64 the number
Gr. 17.
* {P}64 and {P}67 from Barcelona (P.Barc. inv. 1) are part of the same
manuscript, but this manuscript should not be linked with fragments of Luke
known from {P}4. Pickering thinks the association should not be abandoned
so quickly. {P}4 is also known as P. Paris Bibl. Nat. Suppl. Gr. 1120. To
quote C. H. Roberts, "There can in my opinion be no doubt that all these
fragments come from the same codex which was reused as packing for the
binding of the late third century codex of of Philo." [<b>Manuscript,
Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt</>, Oxford University Press,
1979, p. 13.]
* Nestle-Aland has mislabeled the contents of the {P}Magdalen Gr. 17
fragments, which Roberts labeled correctly. It is a matter of Mt 26.31
appearing on a different fragment (fr. 1, recto) from Mt 26.32-33 (fr. 2,
recto). Verso listings are correct.
* Four variant readings, most of which Stuart Pickering has discussed more
adequately than Thiede. However, the scribal error of GALEGLAIAN for
GALEILAIAN, `Galilean,' of Roberts (1953) is reported by Thiede to have
been misprinted in Roberts (1962) [`Complementary Note,' in R. Roca-Puig,
Un Papiro Griego del Evangelio de San Mateo, Barcelona\2/1962, 59-60.] This
transcription reads, as Thiede reports, GALIGLAIAN, to which Roberts
added a note "`v.33, vel GALEILAIAN." Thiede transcribed GALEGLAIAN (op.
cit., p. 20). In discussing the article with Robert Kraft, he mentioned
that it was apparent that the papyrus does *not* have a gamma before the
lambda, but rather an iota. Close attention to the photos of Roberts
(1953) indicates that what has been taken as a crossbar to a gamma is
probably a flaw in the papyrus, and only the vertical line (of an iota)
should be read.
* Thiede gives the history of dating the fragment, starting with its
acquisition by the Rev. Charles B. Huleatt at Luxor in 1901. Huleatt
suggested third century; a librarian reported that A. S. Hunt thought the
fourth c. was more likely. Hunt, together with Grenfell, assigned
manuscripts which came from codices to third century or later. Roberts
(1953) dared to question this, and reassigned {P}64 to ca. 200, based on
paleography. Roberts (1953) announced that he had obtained the agreement on
the dating of Bell, Skeat, and Turner, major names in paleography of Greek
manuscripts. As Pickering notes, Thiede does not say *why* these notables
were incorrect in their collective paleographical judgment as to the date
of {P}64.
* Thiede omits to note that {P}64 is clearly in two columns; he obscures
this in his transcription, though the accompanying plate is similar to
Roberts (1953) in presentation. Roberts (1953) in contrast notes the
two-column format, and clearly labels his transcription according to
columns.
* Thiede argues that *new* papyri, published since Roberts (1953) allow the
consideration of an earlier date. He mentions the Greek Minor Prophets
Scroll, now called 8HevXIIgr, published in DJD VIII, Ed. by E. Tov, 1990,
paleographically dated by P. Parsons. Thiede also mentions texts from
Herculaneum (until 79 c.e. -- the eruption of Vesuvius) and a recent
publication (Kim, Biblica, 1988) that lowers the date of Bodmer-Chester
Beatty papyrus II ({P} 46) from ca. 200 to ca. 100 c.e. He then adduces
likenesses of individual letters to these early papyri from various parts
of the Mediterranean. As Stuart Pickering indicated, most of this work is
unsound in its reliance solely on individual letter forms. I would add that
Thiede sees resemblances between serifed letters from serif-style mss and
'plain' letters from {P}64, where the overall style is also lacking in
serifs or other ornamentation.
A sound investigation of the possibility of redating an individual ms would
assemble a group of related ms wihout regard to their date, and then
attempt to place the specific ms within a series of mss. This is a method
which has led to good results with the paleographical dating of the
Hebrew-Aramaic mss of the Dead Sea. Where there are few examples, as with
the Greek mss of the Dead Sea, precise paleographical comparisons cannot be
made, and dating is very hazardous. This is the case with the Greek Minor
Prophets Scroll (8HevXIIgr). To use this ms as a basis for dating another
ms, as Thiede has done, is to compound the unreliability of paleographical
dating. In contrast to the method I have sketched, Thiede appears to have
proceeded by assembling materials which *might* be datable to the first
century, and then found individual letter forms from the Matthew fragments
which are not unlike letter forms in his samples chosen only by their date.
Such a method as Thiede's does not have what scientists call "face
validity." There is no reason to think that the the investigator has been
striving for objectivity, when the methodology is so closely related to
the results obtained.
While the initial methodological error of A. S. Hunt with respect to
dating {P}64 - the Matthew fragments - occurred because he and Grenfell
believed that codices did not appear until the third century (Roberts,
1953:234), codicological information is important and relevant. No one
disputes that these fragments come from a codex. Eric G. Turner's
investigation of the codex in <b>The Typology of the Early Codex</>,
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977, sets a lower bound for codex
development as the second century c.e. (p. 4), based on the dating of
"Christian" materials, with Greek literary codices becoming prevalent a
century later. Thiede does not call for, nor address, the implications of
his findings for codicology. Should Turner's dates for codices be lowered?
Thiede does not say.
* Thiede concludes his argumentation with a discussion of <italics> nomina
sacra</>. He argues that Kim's lowered dating of {P}46, which has clear
<i>nomina sacra</>, supports Roberts's speculations that <i>nomina sacra</>
were used in the first century c.e. Roberts did not redate his list of
early papyri to support his contention, however. [Source is C. H. Roberts,
<b>Manuscript, Society and Belief in Earliest Christian Europe</>, Oxford
Univ. Press, 1979.] This material is included because Roberts (1953) and
Thiede (1995) both reconstruct <i>nomina sacra</> in unclear or missing
portions of the fragments of {P}64. Whereas Roberts (1953) is
methodologically within bounds in reconstructing <i>nomina sacra</> for a
date of ca. 200 c.e., because a fair amount of other evidence exists to
support the practice, Thiede (1995) is methodologically less secure in
reconstructing <i>nomina sacra</> for a date around 70 c.e., since he
relies on their plain existence only in Kim's redating of {P}46 (Bodmer
II).
Both the media presentation of I above, and Thiede's article in ZPE depend
on the perception of <i>nomina sacra</> in the text of these fragments of
Matthew 26, and specifically on the <i>nomen sacrum</> IS for
<gr>IHSOUS</>.
III ASSESSING THIEDE'S ARGUMENT
Thiede contributes greater precision to the specification of {P}64, as {P}
Magdalen Gr. 17, rather than Gr. 18. He notes Roberts's (1962) changed
reading of GALEGLAIAN to GALIGLAIAN, or perhaps GALEILAIAN, which is
helpful, as the source is not widely available. However, he still reads
GALEGLAIAN in his own transcription. While he notes the relationship with
the fragments in Barcelona, he did not obtain photos and include them in
his argument. He also provides no reason for dropping {P}4 - the Paris Luke
fragment which Roberts (1979) assigned to the same ms.
His redating on paleographical grounds is seriously flawed in four ways.
First, he does not indicate how four great paleographers could all concur
on a lowered redating of the Matthew fragments to a date ca. 200 and still
be in error. Second, he compares letters in these fragments from Egypt
[Luxor is purchase place, hand compares with {P}4, from Philo codex
binding] with material from Herculaneum in Italy (that may be from ca. 40
b.c.e. on provenance grounds, with a terminus ad quem of 79 c.e.) and from
Qumran in The Land, and from elsewhere in the wilderness of the Dead Sea
(NaHal Hever). Third, he compares individual letters without an
appreciation of the characteristics of their formation or the hands of
which they are a part. Fourth, his assembly of mss for comparisons is not
a coherent set, and was apparently chosen primarily as a group of mss
which *could* be dated in the first century c.e., regardless of their
other features.
Thiede did not recognize that a two-column codex such as {P} 64 -- Magdalen
Gr. 17 -- has no similarly-constructed examples with which to be compared.
He does not recognize the need to provide some explanation for the
appearance of a two-column codex at least a century earlier than all other
examples of two-column codices. See Turner, op. cit.
Finally, Thiede (1995) and Roberts (1953) both transcribed the fragments as
thought they contained <i>nomina sacra</>, and as though the use of
<i>nomina sacra</> was not restricted to <gr>KURIOS, KURIE</>, or
<gr>QEOS, QEOU</>, but rather extended to abbreviations of <gr>IHSOUS</>.
However, and I must state this emphatically, there is no visible support
for reconstructing <gr>nomina sacra</> of IS or IH. That is to say, almost
no ink-papyrus combination exists for the areas where these have been
indicated. In working out the stichometry, using the available text of
Matthew 26 in the relevant verses, I was able to supply alternative lines
in every case where Thiede proposed abbreviation or suspension (use of
first and last letters), except for the proposed use of letters instead of
a word to signify the number 12. There, I agree, the stichometry (line
length) is such that IB (Greek letters standing for 12) must be read. This
was also Roberts's (1953) transcription.
Specifically, in the case of Fr. 2, verso (Mt 26.10), Thiede reconstructs a
first line as
__ <gr> [oISeipenau]t[o]i[sti] 16-letter stich
There are at least two problems with this reconstruction. First, the
column is missing both beginning letters and ending letters. Second, there
are no letters on papyrus for this line. At most, there are two dots, which
might be the bottoms of letters, and if they are the bottoms of letters,
those letters just might be the indicated t and i of Thiede's line 1.
In the case of Fr. 3, recto (Mt 26.22-23) both Thiede and Roberts
reconstruct a line with KE, for <gr>KURIE</> of "Is it I, Lord." Thiede
shows
.. . <gr>[eimi]KEod[eapokri]</> 15-letter stich
That there is a line of text here in the papyrus is apparent. What it might
contain is not at all clear. The only clear line follows, with both
beginning and end of the stich missing. The possibilities for
reconstruction are numerous; Thiede's line is not supported by the
miscellaneous ink in various spots on the line.
In the case of Fr. 1, recto (Mt 26.31) many might argue that the name
<gr>IHSOUS</> *must* be suspended, using IH, or abbreviated, using IS, in
order for the line lengths to come out right. I would point out that we
have a line clearly beginning <gr>autoiso.....</> and a following line that
is 16 letters long, (Thiede counted 17) consisting of one word,
<gr>skandalisqhsesqe</>, with the words following in the text appearing on
the line below. The text we now have suggests that the first line would
read <gr>autoisoiesouspanteshumeis</> for an impossible 25 letters.
Thiede suggested <gr>autoiso[ISpantes]</> at 15 letters.
I suggest that <gr>autoiso[iesouspantes<gr> at 19 letters is
possible.
This possibility exists because the word <gr>autois</> extends into the
margin by one letter, and the following five letters occupy the space taken
by only four in the following line. This would mean that a line of 19
letters would come out no longer than a line of 16 or 17 letters, yet could
still contain the name <gr>IHSOUS</> written out. Something has to be done
to fit the first line into the column. That it has to be done using an
abbreviation or suspension of <gr>IHSOUS</> is not automatically the case.
It is a plausible solution, however, for a manuscript considered in
relationship with other two-column codices and other manuscripts containing
<i>nomina sacra</>, which Thiede does not do.
IV SUMMATION
Thiede's 1995 article suggests a lowered date for {P}64 -- P. Magdalen Gr.
17 -- by arguments which are methodologically unsound. His further argument
that there are <italics>nomina sacra</> used in place of <gr>IHSOUS</> and
<gr>KURIE</> is an extremely flimsy one. These fragments of papyrus do not
witness directly to the reconstructions with recognizable inked letters on
physical papyrus. The layout of visible letters in one case supports
Thiede's (and Roberts's) observation that the text contains Greek letters
which represent the numeral 12, rather than the Greek word for 12. In the
other cases, other plausible reconstructions of the lines are also
possible. In the absence of more data, such as the Barcelona fragments
might provide, these fragments do not provide any firm evidence for the
existence of <i>nomina sacra</> in either Roberts's date of ca. 200, or
Thiede's 1st century dating.
Sigrid Peterson UPenn petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT