"Theological Palaeography" ?
.
Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography
Pasquale Orsini & Willy Clarysse
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88 (2012): 443-474.
Abstract
The date of the earliest New Testament papyri is nearly always
based on palaeographical criteria. A consensus among papyrologists,
palaeographers and New Testament scholars is presented in the edition
of Nestle-Aland, 1994. In the last twenty years several New Testament
scholars (Thiede, Comfort-Barrett, 1999, 2001 and Jaroš, 2006) have
argued for an earlier date of most of these texts. The present article
analyzes the date of the earliest New Testament papyri on the basis of
comparative palaeography and a clear distinction between different
types of literary scripts. There are no first-century New Testament
papyri and only very few papyri can be attributed to the (second half
of the) second century. It is only in the third and fourth centuries
that New Testament manuscripts become more common, but here too the
dates proposed by Comfort-Barrett, 1999, 2001, and Jaroš, 2006 are
often too early.
The authors present a 3 page table showing ranges of dating (earliest-latest) in which all but 7 papyri are dated (at latest) before 300 CE.
The article makes reference to an earlier [2011] article which I will also cite below with its abstract.
Grenfell and Hunt on the Dates on Early Christian Codices: Setting the Record Straight --- Brent Nongbri, Macquarie University [2011]
Abstract
Since the middle of the twentieth century, there has been a tendency among scholars
to marginalize the palaeographical opinions of Grenfell and Hunt. Their alleged belief
that the codex format was a post-third century development is said to have induced them
to date fragments of Christian codices much later than they would have on strictly palaeographical
grounds. I argue that this is a serious misrepresentation of their views and practices.
FWIW here are my notes on Brent Nongbri's article.
My notes wrote:
NOTES:
P64 ... Hunt "assigns with more probability to the fourth century.”
P15 and P16 ... "Grenfell and Hunt dated these fragments to the fourth century"
"it may be remarked that in 1904, when Part IV of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri appeared,
Christian texts which could confidently be dated in the second century were unknown."
p.155
In his report of the first season’s excavations (1896/7), Grenfell writes:
I had for some time felt that one of the most promising sites in Egypt for finding
Greek manuscripts was the city of Oxyrhynchus. ... Above all, Oxyrhynchus seemed to
be a site where fragments of Christian literature might be expected of an earlier date
than the fourth century, to which our oldest manuscripts of the New Testament belong;
for the place was renowned in the fourth and fifth centuries on account of the number
of its churches and monasteries, and the rapid spread of Christianity about Oxyrhynchus,
as soon as the new religion was officially recognized, implied that it had already taken
a strong hold during the preceding centuries of persecution.
Oxy. vi 849 = NT Apocrypha 13, is dated to c. iv rather than c. iii because it is on parchment.
“Had the material been papyrus we should have been more disposed to assign it to
late c. iii rather than to c. iv.”
1007 = OT 2 (Latin Genesis on parchment): The same reason is given in regard to vii 1007 = OT 2,
because the material is parchment.
p.160
It seems assured, then, that at least as early as 1899, Grenfell and Hunt recognized
that the received wisdom with regard to the development of the papyrus codex was in need
of revision. Indeed, they stressed the preponderance of examples of Christian codices
in the third century, and they recognized an early Christian preference for the codex.
Conclusion
From nearly the very beginning of their publication of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, Grenfell and Hunt
recognized that Christians were well established in Oxyrhynchus in the third century and that the
codex was an early development among Christians in Egypt. The claim that they thought otherwise
and that this thinking influenced them to date fragments of Christian codices later than they
would have on strictly palaeographical grounds has no basis. The preceding review of the
scholarship demonstrates that the criticism of Grenfell and Hunt by Roberts, Bell, and Skeat is
without merit, and the grosser forms of the claims against Grenfell and Hunt founnd in the
subsequent writings of some biblical scholars should be disregarded. Grenfell and Hunt saw, read,
and edited thousands of papyri. Their palaeographical opinions involving Christian codices have
been unfairly marginalized, and the modern student who ignores their judgements does so to his or
her own detriment.