Fri Feb 14 19:09:39 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Feb 14 19:09:39 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA26035; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:09:39 -0500
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:09:13 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton" 
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: "Robert B. Waltz" 
cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1349

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> >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.

Also, see Aland, TEXT OF NT, p. 102.
Is the combination of age and non-fragmentary length the primary reason for 
your evaluation of the importance of P13?

> 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.

Does anyone know for certain about pre-Christian codices?

> I assume the reference to p41 should be to the *most recent* NT papyrus.

Yes.

--
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

Back