Steven Avery
Administrator
Last edited:
Brent Nongbri’s references to the scholarship consensus - deeply entrenched scholarship
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Brent Nongbri
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article/73/2/516/6652265?login=false
Along with Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, Codex Sinaiticus is generally described as the most ancient surviving basically ‘complete’ Christian Bible.1 Both codices are written in textbook examples of the ‘Biblical Majuscule’ script, and both are typically assigned by scholars to the fourth century, usually near the middle of the century.2 This dating represents a consensus reached about a century ago, after a period when opinions about the age of Codex Sinaiticus varied somewhat.
2
The online catalog entry for Codex Sinaiticus at the British Library (Add MS 43725) lists the date of the codex as ‘2nd quarter of the 4th century – 3rd quarter of the 4th century’ (<http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS032-002169711>). The ‘Reference Guide’ accompanying the 2010 photographic facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus comments only that ‘Codex Sinaiticus is generally dated to the fourth century, and sometimes more precisely to the middle of that century. This is based on a study of the handwriting’. A recent collection of essays produced by the British Library and dedicated to Codex Sinaiticus contained almost no discussion of the date of the codex, just a summary statement: ‘There is a strong consensus that Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the fourth century, and there are no good grounds to dispute that’. See Harry Gamble, ‘Codex Sinaiticus in its Fourth Century Setting’, in Scot McKendrick, David Parker, Amy Myshrall, and Cillian O’Hogan (eds.), Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (London: The British Library, 2015), pp. 3–18, at p. 6.
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article/73/2/516/6652265?login=false
Along with Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, Codex Sinaiticus is generally described as the most ancient surviving basically ‘complete’ Christian Bible.1 Both codices are written in textbook examples of the ‘Biblical Majuscule’ script, and both are typically assigned by scholars to the fourth century, usually near the middle of the century.2 This dating represents a consensus reached about a century ago, after a period when opinions about the age of Codex Sinaiticus varied somewhat.
2
The online catalog entry for Codex Sinaiticus at the British Library (Add MS 43725) lists the date of the codex as ‘2nd quarter of the 4th century – 3rd quarter of the 4th century’ (<http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS032-002169711>). The ‘Reference Guide’ accompanying the 2010 photographic facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus comments only that ‘Codex Sinaiticus is generally dated to the fourth century, and sometimes more precisely to the middle of that century. This is based on a study of the handwriting’. A recent collection of essays produced by the British Library and dedicated to Codex Sinaiticus contained almost no discussion of the date of the codex, just a summary statement: ‘There is a strong consensus that Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the fourth century, and there are no good grounds to dispute that’. See Harry Gamble, ‘Codex Sinaiticus in its Fourth Century Setting’, in Scot McKendrick, David Parker, Amy Myshrall, and Cillian O’Hogan (eds.), Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (London: The British Library, 2015), pp. 3–18, at p. 6.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
For and about the blog:
brentnongbri.com
From the paper there is an emphasis on “consensus” …
“assigned by scholars to the fourth century ...2 This dating represents a consensus reached about a century ago … There is a strong consensus that Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the fourth century,”
It should be noted that these mostly unnamed scholars are not known to have access to the 1844 Leipzig and 1859 St. Petersburg sections, and rarely did they have access to even one section. Tischendorf convinced and pressured the learned cognoscenti into accepting that his facsimile publications, that could be lots of $$$, were sufficient. However, those books were designed to keep uncomfortable features hidden.
Since a strong accusation had been put forth that the manuscript was young and the 1859 leaves (but not the 1844!!) had been stained and coloured, looking at the physical condition of both sections would be necessary for any real objective palaeographic examination.
This had not happened, making the consensus worthless and tyrannical.
=====
Note that there is no hard evidence for the terminus ante quem.
“This is based on a study of the handwriting.”
However, handwriting alone is a very thin Reed, and can be copied 100, 300 or 1,500 years later.
A New Article on the Date of Codex Sinaiticus
The October 2022 issue of Journal of Theological Studies will contain an article I wrote on the dating of Codex Sinaiticus. It’s out now in pre-print format, and thanks to my institution̵…
brentnongbri.com
From the paper there is an emphasis on “consensus” …
“assigned by scholars to the fourth century ...2 This dating represents a consensus reached about a century ago … There is a strong consensus that Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the fourth century,”
It should be noted that these mostly unnamed scholars are not known to have access to the 1844 Leipzig and 1859 St. Petersburg sections, and rarely did they have access to even one section. Tischendorf convinced and pressured the learned cognoscenti into accepting that his facsimile publications, that could be lots of $$$, were sufficient. However, those books were designed to keep uncomfortable features hidden.
Since a strong accusation had been put forth that the manuscript was young and the 1859 leaves (but not the 1844!!) had been stained and coloured, looking at the physical condition of both sections would be necessary for any real objective palaeographic examination.
This had not happened, making the consensus worthless and tyrannical.
=====
Note that there is no hard evidence for the terminus ante quem.
“This is based on a study of the handwriting.”
However, handwriting alone is a very thin Reed, and can be copied 100, 300 or 1,500 years later.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
The Eusebian Apparatus in Codex Sinaiticus
The Eusebian apparatus for the gospels has been getting some much deserved attention in the last few years. This remarkable system for navigating the parallel material in the gospels has formed the…
brentnongbri.com
Arthur Hunt, Harold Idris Bell, and Edward Maunde Thompson on the Date of Codex Sinaiticus
When it comes to the question of assigning palaeographic dates to Greek literary manuscripts of the Roman period, British papyrologists in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries seem to show…
brentnongbri.com
Newsreel Footage of Codex Sinaiticus from 1933
The major portions of Codex Sinaiticus that now reside in the British Library were bound into a volume by Douglas Cockerell after the leaves were closely studied by H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat in t…
brentnongbri.com
Palaeographic Dating: Graphic Difference Does Not Always Mean Chronological Difference
In a few days, I hope to complete a post on the date of Codex Sinaiticus. It has been educational for me to revisit the arguments for the dating of this codex. One quotation that I found especially…
brentnongbri.com
Steven Avery
Administrator
Lesser notes
brentnongbri.com
The hand looks like a mixture of forms from different “styles.” The alpha of P.Ryl. 1.1 (left) sometimes resembles the triangular form familiar from the “Biblical Majuscule” exemplified by Codex Sinaiticus (right):
brentnongbri.com
P.Ryl. 1.1: A Datable Papyrus Codex of Deuteronomy in Greek
In a previous post, I discussed the phenomenon of papyrus codices made from reused documents. Among this group is a very interesting item in the John Rylands Library at the University of Manchester…
brentnongbri.com
The hand looks like a mixture of forms from different “styles.” The alpha of P.Ryl. 1.1 (left) sometimes resembles the triangular form familiar from the “Biblical Majuscule” exemplified by Codex Sinaiticus (right):
Hugo Ibscher Trading Cards
When I was a kid, I enjoyed collecting sports cards. In those days (early 1980s), the cards came in wax-paper wrappers with a flat rectangular piece of so-called “chewing gum” that was …
brentnongbri.com
Steven Avery
Administrator
Open access
brentnongbri.com
Open Access Articles
Below you can find a selection of my articles that are available open access. Daniel B. Sharp and Brent Nongbri, “The Bodmer Papyri and the Chester Beatty,” pages 37-50 in Garrick V. Allen et al. (…
brentnongbri.com
Steven Avery
Administrator
Steven Avery
Administrator
p. 253-255
Magdalen College fragments
Fabricating a Second-Century Codex
253
From Codex to Icon: Popular Media Interest and Two More Gospels Yet, so far this story is pretty mundane. As we have seen with the Beatty Biblical Papyri and the Bodmer Papyri, it is not unusual for parts of the same codex to be divided among different holding institutions. It was not until the mid-1990s that these fragments became truly exceptional. On Christmas Eve 1994, the Times ran a frontpage story carrying the title “Oxford papyrus is eyewitness record of the life of Christ.” The Oxford papyrus in question was the fragmentary leaf of Matthew at Magdalen College. Nearly two full pages in the Times gave voice to the case of Carsten Thiede (1952–2004), who argued that the Matthew fragments dated not to the late second century, as Roberts had claimed, but to “the mid-first century.”9 The Christmas Eve news story appeared in anticipation of an academic article to be published by Thiede in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik in 1995.10 This article spelled out Thiede’s ideas more fully. First, he argued that the Paris fragments of Luke were part of a different book that was copied “considerably later (by up to one- hundred years).” The fragments of Matthew from Oxford and Barcelona were then said to date from “the first century, perhaps (though not necessarily) predating AD 70.” Thiede’s “argument” (I use the term loosely) for this new date was purely paleographic, based on asserted similarities with Greek writings from Nahal Hever and Qumran in Palestine and Herculaneum in Italy. Thiede’s article drew swift rebuttals from the academic community, with a subsequent issue of Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik publishing a thorough, point-by-point refutation by Klaus Wachtel.11 Undaunted, and indeed buoyed by the ongoing publicity, Thiede and the author of the original column in the Times copublished a popular book reasserting and elaborating Thiede’s claims and attacking his critics.12 Thiede’s proposals again failed to persuade any experts, but the tactic of making his case in the media and the popular press drew worldwide attention to his claims.13 Thiede’s ideas were featured in the New York Times, on the cover of Der Spiegel, and in many other prominent media outlets.14 In the following year, another article in a major biblical studies journal kept the spotlight on these fragments. The papyrologist The-
254
Fabricating a Second-Century Codex
odore Skeat (1907–2003) laid out a thesis that is in some ways just as astonishing as the claims made by Thiede. Skeat was convinced that these fragments were once part of a codex that contained all four gospels.15 Thus, like Roberts, Skeat believed that all the fragments of Matthew and the fragments of Luke must have come from the same codex. But Skeat went even further. In a long and detailed discussion, he tried to extrapolate numbers of letters that would have appeared on individual pages of the Matthew fragments to demonstrate that the codex could not have contained only Matthew and Luke and that it must have been a single-quire construction. According to Skeat, the codex must have contained something else between the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and there was no doubt about what that “something else” must be: “We come to the conclusion that another Gospel or Gospels must have intervened at this point; and since a codex containing three gospels is unthinkable, the only possible conclusion is that the manuscript originally contained all four Gospels.”16 Skeat was not deterred by the fact that codices with three gospels are known, as are codices that mix gospels and other literature.17 Skeat also offered the fullest paleographic discussion of the fragments and made a vigorous argument that this four-gospel codex was datable to the second century. At the same time, however, he observed that “the general appearance of the script” could be described in the very terms used to characterize the writing of Codex Sinaiticus, which is generally thought to have been copied in the middle of the fourth century.18 Skeat also spent several paragraphs puzzling over how Frederic Kenyon could have assigned the Luke fragments to the fourth century but the Philo codex to the third century.19 This point is important, and I return to it shortly. Later that same year, our fragments of Matthew and Luke featured prominently in another article in the same journal. In the printed version of his presidential address to the Society for New Testament Studies, Graham Stanton, Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, fully accepted Skeat’s arguments and pushed them still further. He wrote: “Skeat has now shown beyond reasonable doubt that 𝔓64+𝔓67+𝔓4 are from the same single-quire codex, probably our earliest four-Gospel codex which may date from the
Fabricating a Second-Century Codex
255
late second century. . . . The codex was planned and executed meticulously: the skill of the scribe in constructing it is most impressive. . . . This codex does not look at all like an experiment by a scribe working out ways to include four gospels in one codex: it certainly had predecessors much earlier in the second century.”20 For Stanton, then, we have not just one, but multiple luxury codices containing all four canonical gospels, and they were circulating not just at the end of the second century, but much earlier in the century as well! We have come a long way from five small fragments of Matthew’s gospel and a few damaged leaves of Luke. The papers by Skeat and Stanton provoked several responses. The two most important appeared in New Testament Studies. Peter Head addressed Skeat’s mathematical calculations of letters per page and demonstrated that because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence, Skeat could not possibly achieve the precision he claimed.21 Shortly after that, Scott Charlesworth, in a very detailed analysis, pointed out that Skeat’s argument that the fragments all came from one single-quire codex had neglected the one crucial type of evidence that could be almost decisive for such an argument—the directions of the fibers of the individual leaves. It turns out that on some of the fragments of Matthew, the horizontal fibers precede the vertical, and on others, the vertical precede the horizontal. So, for example, one of the Barcelona fragments contains Matt 3:9 written on the vertical fibers and Matt 3:15 on its reverse written along the horizontal fibers, but the other fragment contains Matt 5:20–22 written along the horizontal fibers and on its reverse Matt 5:25–28 written against the vertical fibers. Thus, the center of a quire most likely intervened between these fragments. The same alternating pattern is true of the leaves of Luke, which shows that both the Matthew fragments and the Luke fragments probably came from multiquire codices.22 So, Skeat’s four-gospel, single-quire codex theory of these fragments has not carried the day, but the question of whether the Matthew and the Luke fragments might come from the same multi-quire codex remains open.23 And there is still broad agreement that the Luke fragments (and perhaps the Matthew fragments) come from a known archaeological context (the house in Koptos) and have a secure terminus ante quem in that they were used to construct the
Magdalen College fragments
Fabricating a Second-Century Codex
253
From Codex to Icon: Popular Media Interest and Two More Gospels Yet, so far this story is pretty mundane. As we have seen with the Beatty Biblical Papyri and the Bodmer Papyri, it is not unusual for parts of the same codex to be divided among different holding institutions. It was not until the mid-1990s that these fragments became truly exceptional. On Christmas Eve 1994, the Times ran a frontpage story carrying the title “Oxford papyrus is eyewitness record of the life of Christ.” The Oxford papyrus in question was the fragmentary leaf of Matthew at Magdalen College. Nearly two full pages in the Times gave voice to the case of Carsten Thiede (1952–2004), who argued that the Matthew fragments dated not to the late second century, as Roberts had claimed, but to “the mid-first century.”9 The Christmas Eve news story appeared in anticipation of an academic article to be published by Thiede in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik in 1995.10 This article spelled out Thiede’s ideas more fully. First, he argued that the Paris fragments of Luke were part of a different book that was copied “considerably later (by up to one- hundred years).” The fragments of Matthew from Oxford and Barcelona were then said to date from “the first century, perhaps (though not necessarily) predating AD 70.” Thiede’s “argument” (I use the term loosely) for this new date was purely paleographic, based on asserted similarities with Greek writings from Nahal Hever and Qumran in Palestine and Herculaneum in Italy. Thiede’s article drew swift rebuttals from the academic community, with a subsequent issue of Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik publishing a thorough, point-by-point refutation by Klaus Wachtel.11 Undaunted, and indeed buoyed by the ongoing publicity, Thiede and the author of the original column in the Times copublished a popular book reasserting and elaborating Thiede’s claims and attacking his critics.12 Thiede’s proposals again failed to persuade any experts, but the tactic of making his case in the media and the popular press drew worldwide attention to his claims.13 Thiede’s ideas were featured in the New York Times, on the cover of Der Spiegel, and in many other prominent media outlets.14 In the following year, another article in a major biblical studies journal kept the spotlight on these fragments. The papyrologist The-
254
Fabricating a Second-Century Codex
odore Skeat (1907–2003) laid out a thesis that is in some ways just as astonishing as the claims made by Thiede. Skeat was convinced that these fragments were once part of a codex that contained all four gospels.15 Thus, like Roberts, Skeat believed that all the fragments of Matthew and the fragments of Luke must have come from the same codex. But Skeat went even further. In a long and detailed discussion, he tried to extrapolate numbers of letters that would have appeared on individual pages of the Matthew fragments to demonstrate that the codex could not have contained only Matthew and Luke and that it must have been a single-quire construction. According to Skeat, the codex must have contained something else between the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and there was no doubt about what that “something else” must be: “We come to the conclusion that another Gospel or Gospels must have intervened at this point; and since a codex containing three gospels is unthinkable, the only possible conclusion is that the manuscript originally contained all four Gospels.”16 Skeat was not deterred by the fact that codices with three gospels are known, as are codices that mix gospels and other literature.17 Skeat also offered the fullest paleographic discussion of the fragments and made a vigorous argument that this four-gospel codex was datable to the second century. At the same time, however, he observed that “the general appearance of the script” could be described in the very terms used to characterize the writing of Codex Sinaiticus, which is generally thought to have been copied in the middle of the fourth century.18 Skeat also spent several paragraphs puzzling over how Frederic Kenyon could have assigned the Luke fragments to the fourth century but the Philo codex to the third century.19 This point is important, and I return to it shortly. Later that same year, our fragments of Matthew and Luke featured prominently in another article in the same journal. In the printed version of his presidential address to the Society for New Testament Studies, Graham Stanton, Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, fully accepted Skeat’s arguments and pushed them still further. He wrote: “Skeat has now shown beyond reasonable doubt that 𝔓64+𝔓67+𝔓4 are from the same single-quire codex, probably our earliest four-Gospel codex which may date from the
Fabricating a Second-Century Codex
255
late second century. . . . The codex was planned and executed meticulously: the skill of the scribe in constructing it is most impressive. . . . This codex does not look at all like an experiment by a scribe working out ways to include four gospels in one codex: it certainly had predecessors much earlier in the second century.”20 For Stanton, then, we have not just one, but multiple luxury codices containing all four canonical gospels, and they were circulating not just at the end of the second century, but much earlier in the century as well! We have come a long way from five small fragments of Matthew’s gospel and a few damaged leaves of Luke. The papers by Skeat and Stanton provoked several responses. The two most important appeared in New Testament Studies. Peter Head addressed Skeat’s mathematical calculations of letters per page and demonstrated that because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence, Skeat could not possibly achieve the precision he claimed.21 Shortly after that, Scott Charlesworth, in a very detailed analysis, pointed out that Skeat’s argument that the fragments all came from one single-quire codex had neglected the one crucial type of evidence that could be almost decisive for such an argument—the directions of the fibers of the individual leaves. It turns out that on some of the fragments of Matthew, the horizontal fibers precede the vertical, and on others, the vertical precede the horizontal. So, for example, one of the Barcelona fragments contains Matt 3:9 written on the vertical fibers and Matt 3:15 on its reverse written along the horizontal fibers, but the other fragment contains Matt 5:20–22 written along the horizontal fibers and on its reverse Matt 5:25–28 written against the vertical fibers. Thus, the center of a quire most likely intervened between these fragments. The same alternating pattern is true of the leaves of Luke, which shows that both the Matthew fragments and the Luke fragments probably came from multiquire codices.22 So, Skeat’s four-gospel, single-quire codex theory of these fragments has not carried the day, but the question of whether the Matthew and the Luke fragments might come from the same multi-quire codex remains open.23 And there is still broad agreement that the Luke fragments (and perhaps the Matthew fragments) come from a known archaeological context (the house in Koptos) and have a secure terminus ante quem in that they were used to construct the
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Notes to Pages 11–15
p. 285
. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, the famous parchment manuscripts, have been especially well served in recent years. See Andrist (ed.), Le manuscrit B de la Bible, and McKendrick et al. (eds.), Codex Sinaiticus. 42. Hurtado appropriately cites as an important predecessor to his own work Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, which was a landmark study published in 1979. The evidence upon which Roberts built his arguments is now somewhat dated. 43. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, 17. 44. Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 1. 45. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, 16, and Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 1–50. 46. Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 2. 47. Chapter 7 of this book explores an example of this phenomenon in great detail, but a shorter example can be given here. Although the Gospel According to John is not clearly quoted by Christian authors until near the end of the second century, it is common for biblical scholars to argue that we can be certain that this gospel was written much earlier because of “archaeological discoveries” of ancient manuscripts. For example, in a popular introductory textbook, a well-respected New Testament scholar writes that “the archaeological discovery of Greek manuscripts of John’s Gospel in Egypt dating from the late . . . or even early second century . . . makes a late second-century date of composition impossible” ( Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 466). Yet, the three manuscripts that Johnson cites to support this claim were all purchased on the antiquities market. They have no certain archaeological context, and the dates assigned to them are based only on handwriting, which cannot realistically provide such a narrow window of time. See the discussion in Chapter 2. 48. James M. Robinson, for instance, relied heavily on the reports of locals from the areas where the Nag Hammadi codices and the Bodmer Papyri were allegedly found. When some colleagues challenged the veracity of these reports, Robinson claimed that “such scholars [look] down condescendingly on the Egyptians as natives one could never trust” (Robinson, “Theological Autobiography,” 138). 49. Robinson, for example, is said to have described his own research among Egyptian locals in the 1970s as follows: “Whenever I went down, I would bring the villagers a bottle of whiskey and a ten-pound note. That was big money at the time. That was my chore in tracking it down. I am not
p. 285
. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, the famous parchment manuscripts, have been especially well served in recent years. See Andrist (ed.), Le manuscrit B de la Bible, and McKendrick et al. (eds.), Codex Sinaiticus. 42. Hurtado appropriately cites as an important predecessor to his own work Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, which was a landmark study published in 1979. The evidence upon which Roberts built his arguments is now somewhat dated. 43. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, 17. 44. Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 1. 45. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, 16, and Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 1–50. 46. Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt, 2. 47. Chapter 7 of this book explores an example of this phenomenon in great detail, but a shorter example can be given here. Although the Gospel According to John is not clearly quoted by Christian authors until near the end of the second century, it is common for biblical scholars to argue that we can be certain that this gospel was written much earlier because of “archaeological discoveries” of ancient manuscripts. For example, in a popular introductory textbook, a well-respected New Testament scholar writes that “the archaeological discovery of Greek manuscripts of John’s Gospel in Egypt dating from the late . . . or even early second century . . . makes a late second-century date of composition impossible” ( Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 466). Yet, the three manuscripts that Johnson cites to support this claim were all purchased on the antiquities market. They have no certain archaeological context, and the dates assigned to them are based only on handwriting, which cannot realistically provide such a narrow window of time. See the discussion in Chapter 2. 48. James M. Robinson, for instance, relied heavily on the reports of locals from the areas where the Nag Hammadi codices and the Bodmer Papyri were allegedly found. When some colleagues challenged the veracity of these reports, Robinson claimed that “such scholars [look] down condescendingly on the Egyptians as natives one could never trust” (Robinson, “Theological Autobiography,” 138). 49. Robinson, for example, is said to have described his own research among Egyptian locals in the 1970s as follows: “Whenever I went down, I would bring the villagers a bottle of whiskey and a ten-pound note. That was big money at the time. That was my chore in tracking it down. I am not
Steven Avery
Administrator
p. 267
267
years. Is it really surprising, then, that experts give a range of well over a century for our gospel fragments? Is there any way to narrow this range of possible dates? Perhaps, but we need to move beyond paleography. One feature common to both the fragments of Matthew and those of Luke is a pattern of textual division by means of ekthesis (the opposite of indentation). Is it possible to determine anything about the date of the fragments on the basis of this type of textual division? In the writings of ancient Christian authors, one finds a few mentions of divisions into stichoi, or sense clauses, in Christian manuscripts beginning in the early third century, but the pattern of division in our fragments seems to be something rather more advanced than sense clauses.55 These are paragraphs. Similar techniques of division of the text are known to occur in manuscripts generally assigned to the fourth and fifth centuries, like Codex Sinaiticus (LDAB 3478), Codex Bezae (LDAB 2929), and the Freer codex of the gospels (LDAB 2985).56 Now, for Roberts, the presence of such textual division in the Matthew fragments proved that this kind of textual division went all the way back to the second century.57 But because paleographic dating is so uncertain, the inference should probably work in the opposite direction: the presence of developed textual divisions should, if anything, make us lean toward a rather later date for these fragments, although not much stress can be placed on this kind of argumentation. Don Barker has recently proposed that the range of possible dates for the production of these fragments of Matthew and Luke runs from the middle of the second century to the middle of the fourth century.58 This is a sensible evaluation. A second-century date is not impossible. These fragments may represent both an early example of the Biblical Majuscule type of hand and an early example of this system of textual division. They may also represent both an early example of the multi-quire papyrus codex and an early example of a multi-gospel codex. But it is equally possible that these frag ments were copied in the third or even the fourth century, when all of these characteristics are more common. There is just a lot of uncertainty surrounding various aspects of these fragments. What does seem certain is that they hardly form a secure foundation upon which to build
267
years. Is it really surprising, then, that experts give a range of well over a century for our gospel fragments? Is there any way to narrow this range of possible dates? Perhaps, but we need to move beyond paleography. One feature common to both the fragments of Matthew and those of Luke is a pattern of textual division by means of ekthesis (the opposite of indentation). Is it possible to determine anything about the date of the fragments on the basis of this type of textual division? In the writings of ancient Christian authors, one finds a few mentions of divisions into stichoi, or sense clauses, in Christian manuscripts beginning in the early third century, but the pattern of division in our fragments seems to be something rather more advanced than sense clauses.55 These are paragraphs. Similar techniques of division of the text are known to occur in manuscripts generally assigned to the fourth and fifth centuries, like Codex Sinaiticus (LDAB 3478), Codex Bezae (LDAB 2929), and the Freer codex of the gospels (LDAB 2985).56 Now, for Roberts, the presence of such textual division in the Matthew fragments proved that this kind of textual division went all the way back to the second century.57 But because paleographic dating is so uncertain, the inference should probably work in the opposite direction: the presence of developed textual divisions should, if anything, make us lean toward a rather later date for these fragments, although not much stress can be placed on this kind of argumentation. Don Barker has recently proposed that the range of possible dates for the production of these fragments of Matthew and Luke runs from the middle of the second century to the middle of the fourth century.58 This is a sensible evaluation. A second-century date is not impossible. These fragments may represent both an early example of the Biblical Majuscule type of hand and an early example of this system of textual division. They may also represent both an early example of the multi-quire papyrus codex and an early example of a multi-gospel codex. But it is equally possible that these frag ments were copied in the third or even the fourth century, when all of these characteristics are more common. There is just a lot of uncertainty surrounding various aspects of these fragments. What does seem certain is that they hardly form a secure foundation upon which to build
Steven Avery
Administrator
Prepaying a note for the blog on consensus.
Dear Brent,
Here is a very important point for consideration:
In your paper you build your study on the foundation of the scholarship consensus:
typically assigned by scholars to the fourth century, usually near the middle of the century.2 This dating represents a consensus reached about a century ago, after a period when opinions about the age of Codex Sinaiticus varied somewhat.
... ‘There is a strong consensus that Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the fourth century (Harry Gamble)
7
For instance, the British New Testament textual critic Samuel Tregelles, despite having a strained relationship with Tischendorf, agreed with the fourth century assignment. After examining the New Testament leaves in Leipzig in 1862, he wrote: ‘I believe I know something of Greek MSS and I am positively convinced that this is a manuscript of the fourth century’. See Timothy C. F. Stunt, ‘Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus’, The Evangelical Quarterly 48 (1976), pp. 15–26, at p. 19. See also Frederick H. Scrivener, A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament (London: Bell and Daldy, 1864), pp. xiii-xl, at p. xxix: ‘Codex Sinaiticus is coeval with its rival in the Vatican, and consequently a record of the fourth century of the Christian era.’ Scrivener had not seen the manuscript himself. He based his judgements primarily on the 17 reproductions published in the first volume of Tischendorf, Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus.
Dear Brent,
Here is a very important point for consideration:
In your paper you build your study on the foundation of the scholarship consensus:
typically assigned by scholars to the fourth century, usually near the middle of the century.2 This dating represents a consensus reached about a century ago, after a period when opinions about the age of Codex Sinaiticus varied somewhat.
... ‘There is a strong consensus that Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the fourth century (Harry Gamble)
7
For instance, the British New Testament textual critic Samuel Tregelles, despite having a strained relationship with Tischendorf, agreed with the fourth century assignment. After examining the New Testament leaves in Leipzig in 1862, he wrote: ‘I believe I know something of Greek MSS and I am positively convinced that this is a manuscript of the fourth century’. See Timothy C. F. Stunt, ‘Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus’, The Evangelical Quarterly 48 (1976), pp. 15–26, at p. 19. See also Frederick H. Scrivener, A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament (London: Bell and Daldy, 1864), pp. xiii-xl, at p. xxix: ‘Codex Sinaiticus is coeval with its rival in the Vatican, and consequently a record of the fourth century of the Christian era.’ Scrivener had not seen the manuscript himself. He based his judgements primarily on the 17 reproductions published in the first volume of Tischendorf, Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus.
Last edited: