Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: tc-list Re: P52

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... Actually, I mistyped and it should have been 117 CE. The fragmenthas been dated to the time of Hadrian by Roberts with agreement from most of the eminent
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 29, 1997
      Bart Ehrman wrote:

      > A side-question. How have you arrived at 113 CE as the terminus a
      > quo?
      >
      > -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

      Actually, I mistyped and it should have been 117 CE. The
      fragmenthas been dated to the time of Hadrian by Roberts with agreement
      from
      most of the eminent palaeographers of the time, Deissman, Kenyon, etc.
      Deissman actually held open the possibility for the time of Trajan
      (98-117 CE).

      Jack

      > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote:
      >
      > > List:
      > >
      > > Are any of the earliest NT papyri opisthographs? P52 appears
      > > to be the oldest example of a codex fragment, therefore it's a quo
      > > date of 113 CE is the earliest date I can assign for the practice
      > > (unless anyone knows of an earlier example). I would be
      > > interested in some examples of the ad quo dates for both Hebrew
      > > and Greek opisthographic papyri.
      > >
      > > Jack
      > >
      > > --
      > > D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
      > > Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)
      > >
      > >
      > > http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium
      > >
      > >
      > >



      --
      D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
      Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


      http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... Since the text on the verso of P13 is Livy, has their been an opinion offered as to how the papyrus was used? A draft preliminary to the making of a
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 29, 1997
        Robert B. Waltz wrote:

        > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon <jpman@...> wrote:
        >
        > >List:
        > >
        > > Are any of the earliest NT papyri opisthographs? P52 appears
        > >to be the oldest example of a codex fragment, therefore it's a quo
        > >date of 113 CE is the earliest date I can assign for the practice
        > >(unless anyone knows of an earlier example). I would be
        > >interested in some examples of the ad quo dates for both Hebrew
        > >and Greek opisthographic papyri.
        >
        > P13 -- the most substantial papyrus not in the Beatty or Bodmer
        > collections -- is an opisthograph. Date is listed as III/IV.
        > Text is similar to P46 and B.
        >

        Since the text on the verso of P13 is Livy, has their been an
        opinion
        offered as to how the papyrus was used? A draft preliminary to the
        making of a codex? A singular scroll of Hebrews, reusing a scroll
        of Livy? Is it a true opisthograph in that the text of Hebrews does not

        continue on the reverse?

        I am wondering if the invention of the codex is of Christian origin
        and may coincide with the "collation" of the Gospels and epistles
        of Paul, perhaps in Ephesus, around the turn of the 2nd century.....
        perhaps Ephesians being a "cover letter" for that work.

        For the life of me, I cannot find support for Thiede's claim that
        the Codex was in use in the mid 1st century.

        Jack

        --
        D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
        Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


        http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium
      • Curt Niccum
        I am not familiar with Thiede s specific claim. As for the secular use of the codex, it had apparently experienced limited use before the first century of the
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 29, 1997
          I am not familiar with Thiede's specific claim. As for the secular use
          of the codex, it had apparently experienced limited use before the first
          century of the common era (if we understand Martial correctly). In
          addition, I believe the notes of Philodemus' lectures were discovered in
          codex form which would provide hard evidence of its use around the
          middle of the first century. If Thiede is specifically referring to
          Christian codices, then his argument rests on his untenable dating of
          p64 et al.

          Curt

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Jack Kilmon [SMTP:jpman@...]
          Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 12:53 PM
          To: tc-list@...
          Subject: Re: tc-list Re: P52

          Robert B. Waltz wrote:

          > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon <jpman@...> wrote:
          >
          > >List:
          > >
          > > Are any of the earliest NT papyri opisthographs? P52
          appears
          > >to be the oldest example of a codex fragment, therefore it's
          a quo
          > >date of 113 CE is the earliest date I can assign for the
          practice
          > >(unless anyone knows of an earlier example). I would be
          > >interested in some examples of the ad quo dates for both
          Hebrew
          > >and Greek opisthographic papyri.
          >
          > P13 -- the most substantial papyrus not in the Beatty or
          Bodmer
          > collections -- is an opisthograph. Date is listed as III/IV.
          > Text is similar to P46 and B.
          >

          Since the text on the verso of P13 is Livy, has their been
          an
          opinion
          offered as to how the papyrus was used? A draft preliminary to
          the
          making of a codex? A singular scroll of Hebrews, reusing a
          scroll
          of Livy? Is it a true opisthograph in that the text of Hebrews
          does not

          continue on the reverse?

          I am wondering if the invention of the codex is of Christian
          origin
          and may coincide with the "collation" of the Gospels and
          epistles
          of Paul, perhaps in Ephesus, around the turn of the 2nd
          century.....
          perhaps Ephesians being a "cover letter" for that work.

          For the life of me, I cannot find support for Thiede's claim
          that
          the Codex was in use in the mid 1st century.

          Jack

          --
          D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
          Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


          http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... This is interesting. It would seem, therefore, that the codex wasdeveloped from its pagan invention by Christians while the Jewish format continued in
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 29, 1997
            Curt Niccum wrote:

            > I am not familiar with Thiede's specific claim. As for the secular use
            >
            > of the codex, it had apparently experienced limited use before the
            > first
            > century of the common era (if we understand Martial correctly). In
            > addition, I believe the notes of Philodemus' lectures were discovered
            > in
            > codex form which would provide hard evidence of its use around the
            > middle of the first century. If Thiede is specifically referring to
            > Christian codices, then his argument rests on his untenable dating of
            > p64 et al.
            >
            > Curt
            >

            This is interesting. It would seem, therefore, that the codex
            wasdeveloped from its "pagan" invention by Christians while the
            Jewish format continued in scroll form...since the earliest Hebrew
            codex, of which I am aware, is C. Cairensis (late 9th C). The
            Jewish resistance of this much more convenient format must have
            been held on religious grounds. I wonder what format old
            Flavius Joe used for his autographs?

            Jack
            --
            D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
            Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


            http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium
          • Professor L.W. Hurtado
            To the best of my knowledge, refs. to the use of codices in the lst-2nd cents (other than the indications of Christian appropriation of the format) signal the
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 30, 1997
              To the best of my knowledge, refs. to the use of
              codices in the lst-2nd cents (other than the indications of Christian
              appropriation of the format) signal the following:
              --Use of the codex for non-literary purposes/writings, such as
              notebooks, study-copies of literary works, documentary texts, etc.
              --Experimentation with the codex in a few cases for liteary works,
              with a view toward making "pocket" editions. Martial's ref. for
              example seems to refer to the particular advantage of a codex for
              reading while en route.
              Thus, the Christian innovation with the codex appears as follows:
              --a MUCH more regularised/standardised appropriation/usage of the
              codex. The % figures given by Roberts & others who have worked on
              the question are undeniable.
              --a particular FAVORING of the codex for what became their
              "scriptures", both OT & NT writings. Christian copies of other
              Christian writings survive, and a number of them are NOT in codex
              form. The Christian favoring of the codex seems not easily accounted
              for merely as an act of convenience (e.g., to make "pocket
              editions"). It looks quite deliberate and purposeful. Problem is
              trying to find clear indications of the purpose!

              L. W. Hurtado
              University of Edinburgh,
              New College
              Mound Place
              Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
              Phone: 0131-650-8920
              Fax: 0131-650-6579
              E-mail: L.Hurtado@...
            • Mark and Wendy Proctor
              I m probably mentioning the obvious here, but it might be a good idea to check Harry Y. Gambe s *Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 30, 1997
                I'm probably mentioning the obvious here, but it might be a good idea to check Harry Y. Gambe's *Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts* (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1995) on this subject. Unless I'm mistaken, Gamble argues that the codex was not a Christian "invention," but that it was used more by Christians than others. Why? It seems that the collection of the Pauline letters and the subsequent need for an efficient way of binding this material in a usable format precipitated the widespread use of the codex form in early Christian circles. If Gamble is right, this would push the appearance of Christian codices back into the latter part of the first century.

                Hope this is of some assistance,

                Mark Proctor

                ----------
                From: Professor L.W. Hurtado[SMTP:hurtadol@...]
                Sent: Thursday, October 30, 1997 4:15 AM
                To: tc-list@...
                Subject: tc-list Re: codex

                To the best of my knowledge, refs. to the use of
                codices in the lst-2nd cents (other than the indications of Christian
                appropriation of the format) signal the following:
                --Use of the codex for non-literary purposes/writings, such as
                notebooks, study-copies of literary works, documentary texts, etc.
                --Experimentation with the codex in a few cases for liteary works,
                with a view toward making "pocket" editions. Martial's ref. for
                example seems to refer to the particular advantage of a codex for
                reading while en route.
                Thus, the Christian innovation with the codex appears as follows:
                --a MUCH more regularised/standardised appropriation/usage of the
                codex. The % figures given by Roberts & others who have worked on
                the question are undeniable.
                --a particular FAVORING of the codex for what became their
                "scriptures", both OT & NT writings. Christian copies of other
                Christian writings survive, and a number of them are NOT in codex
                form. The Christian favoring of the codex seems not easily accounted
                for merely as an act of convenience (e.g., to make "pocket
                editions"). It looks quite deliberate and purposeful. Problem is
                trying to find clear indications of the purpose!

                L. W. Hurtado
                University of Edinburgh,
                New College
                Mound Place
                Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
                Phone: 0131-650-8920
                Fax: 0131-650-6579
                E-mail: L.Hurtado@...
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.