Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:36 -0600

Robert Waltz said:

> To say that parchment replaced papyrus at any given date is massively
> oversimplified. If you check any of the lists of papyri and uncials,
> you will see that papyri have been found from the second to the
> seventh/eighth centuries. The first parchment manuscripts are found
> in the third century, and of course continued to be used exclusively
> till about the twelfth century, and occasionally thereafter.

Robert, I think your statement might be misunderstood.  Parchments were in
use far earlier than the date you give, *possibly* even for mss of the New
Testament--although that's clearly not what you were talking about.  Note 2
Tim 4.13, where the canonical Paul (to use Jim Oxford's term) asks for his
books, especially TAS MEMBRANAS--this from 1st-2nd century, depending on
which argument you buy.  (MEMBRANAS is the Greek transliteration of the
Latin for parchments.)

You're right to assign the date of the extant parchment mss of the New
Testament to a later period--which was, of course, your intent.

Grace and peace, 

Perry L. Stepp

************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. candidate, Baylor University

"A system of morality which is based on relative 
emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar
conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing
true."
                    Phaedo 69b
************************************************************

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:43:11 -0700

>Testament to a later period--which was, of course, your intent.

Exactly. I was speaking of *recovered* items. Chances are that most
of the original NT documents were written on papyri (probably
on scrolls, in fact). So there were first century papyri.

By the second century, in all likelihood, the documents were being copied
on parchment in at least some places. And, of course, as the documents
came to be more and more highly venerated, they would be more and more
likely to be copied in elaborate form on parchment.

Copies on papyrus probably continued to be made for a very long time --
*after* the date of our last papyrus manuscript. But they were made
outside Egypt, and so have not survived.

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

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

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)

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:40:43 +000

Two notes:
--"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.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:35:33 -0600 (CST)

> earlier than outside Christian circles,  and may well have begun in 

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.

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:09:32 +000

Ron Minton wrote:

>  My studies indicate that the early Christians 

 See, e.g., C.H. Roberts, _The Birth of the Codex_.

> eighth century Greek and Coptic diglott fragment of Acts 17:22.

"So wholeheartedly did they [Christians] embrace it [the codex] that 
only three or possibly five of the more than 150 surviving biblical 
MSS in Greek of the pre-400 date produced by Christians are not 
codices" [footnote 43 lists Stud. Pal. 15.234 (Psalms) and PAlex. 
inv. 203 (Isaiah), plus P98 and perhaps P93 and P97].  G.H.R. 
Horsley, "Classical Manuscripts in australia & New Zealand, and the 
Early History of the Codex," _Antichthon:  Journal of the Australian 
Society for Classical studies_ 27(1995): 60-85 [quote from p. 78].

You cannot have meant the last part of the final sentence above.  The 
oldest NT papyrus is the well known P52 (Rylands Fragment).

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:31:04 -0700

>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
                         [email-masked]

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:48:16 -0600

> Society for Classical studies_ 27(1995): 60-85 [quote from p. 78].

	Somewhere near the turn of the 2nd century, Christians in either
Antioch or Ephesus gathered copies of the NT writings that had been
circulating among the churches to "collate" them.  Apparently concerned
that some would be lost (as some were) by individual circulation, I
wonder
if the "invention" of the codex was not a device to keep the collection
together.  The "deutero-pauline" book of Ephesians, a revised
Colossians,
may have been a "cover letter" to that collection.

Thoughts?

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:09:13 -0600 (CST)

> diatessaron fragment. Thus, neither represents a "normal" Biblical

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?

> handful of pre-Christian codices. It's just that the form never caught

Does anyone know for certain about pre-Christian codices?

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

Yes.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:24:18 -0700

On  Fri, 14 Feb 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]> wrote,

>your evaluation of the importance of P13?

Actually, there are three factors: Age, length, and the fact that
p13 seems to go with p46 and B. Since there are only three Greek
manuscripts of this type (Zuntz would add 1739, but I think it
stands apart), and since p46 and B are both defective for parts of
Hebrews, p13 takes on great significance.

Says I. :-)

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:32:55 +000

> may have been a "cover letter" to that collection.

N.B.  Christians didn't "invent" the codex; it had been used 
for some time, but primarily for non-formal writing, such as 
notes, etc.  Earliest was the bundle of wax tablets, 
thereafter parchment codices.  Martial even refers to 
experiments with the codex for publication of literary works 
but suggests this didn't catch on.  Christians appropriated 
the codex-format and seem to have *used* it programmatically 
far earlier than any other group.  WhY?
Various possibile scenarios have been suggested.  They fall basically 
into 2 types:  (1) The Christians may have intended some 
socially/religiously defining significance--Torah is to be written on 
scrolls, so the Christian writings were put in anothe format to 
distinguish them, either as Christian or as something other than 
"scripture"?  (2) Christians appropriated the codex for practical 
reasons, such as the one Kilmon sketched.  But remember that scrolls 
can be prepared with more than one book (e.g., the "book of the 12", 
the "minor Prophetes" are written on one scroll in ancient times).  
Codices did come to be made that could handle a larger amount of 
texts and more writings than is practical for scrolls, but the 
earliest Christian codices are quite a bit smaller and more modest 
than the grand 4th cent ones!
THose interested really could start with the C.H. Roberts, T.C Skeat 
volume, _THe Birth of the Codex_.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:23:44 -0600

Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote:

> "scripture"?

	I would tend to believe that Jewish writings continued in scrolls
because they believed that's how Moses wrote the Torah.  The adoption
and
refinement of the codex form by Christians may have coincided with the
institution
of a "canon" and the desire to keep the "apostolically authoritative"
writings in one package.

  (2) Christians appropriated the codex for practical
> than the grand 4th cent ones!

	Of course. On papyrus and smaller, they were less expensive
and portable....and hideable! :)  At the time Constantine may have
bankrolled Eusebius to produce Aleph and 49 others, no need for
portability and hideability (is that a word>) :)

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 18:08:36 +0100

>volume, _THe Birth of the Codex_.

I would like to add a relatively recent article by T.C. Skeat, _The Origin of 
the Christian Codex_; in: ZPE 102 (1994) 263ff.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster