Fri Feb 14 11:27:54 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Feb 14 11:27:54 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA24567; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:27:54 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: <59B6B40109@div.ed.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:31:04 -0700
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2506

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, "Ronald L. Minton"  wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote:
>> --"tas membranas" (2 Tim 4:13) may in fact = not merely parchment but 
>> parchment *codices*.
>> --The use of the codex for Christian writings is quite early (as 
>> early as any identifiably Christian materials surviving), *far* 
>> earlier than outside Christian circles,  and may well have begun in 
>> the lst cent.
>
>This is very interesting.  My studies indicate that the early Christians 
>invented the codex or at least were the first to widely use it.  It is of 
>course difficult to prove a negative like this.
>
>As I recall, the only NT manuscripts that are not codices are P12, P13, 
>P18, P22, and majuscule 0212; and the oldest NT papyrus is P41, an  
>eighth century Greek and Coptic diglott fragment of Acts 17:22.

To this latter we might add several footnotes:

p13 (the most important papyrus not in the Beatty or Bodmer collections)
is an opisthograph (I hope I spelled that right -- in any case, it is
written on the *back* of a previously used scroll), and 0212 is a
diatessaron fragment. Thus, neither represents a "normal" Biblical
manuscript.

It is clear that Christians used the codex from a very early date (since
p52 is a codex). Certainly they were the first to use the form on
a widespread basis. It seems to me, however, that I have read of a
handful of pre-Christian codices. It's just that the form never caught
on.

We might note that, on papyrus, it was harder to write on the 
"back side" of the sheet, where the grain of the plant and the
direction of the papyrus strips opposed the direction of writing.
Thus, the papyrus codex was rather difficult to write. Even on
parchment, one side was generally better than the other (I forget
whether it was the hair or flesh side). This may explain why the
codex did not come into general use until the Christians adopted it.

I assume the reference to p41 should be to the *most recent* NT papyrus.
And note that it is a Greek/Coptic diglot -- perhaps evidence that the
Egyptian church under Moslem rule turned increasingly to the Coptic
versions.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

Back