Indicators of “Catholicity” in Early Gospel Manuscripts

Review

copy

2

Indicators of ‘Catholicity’ inEarly Gospel Manuscripts

Scott Charlesworth

THE TWO INDICATORS

The remarkable Christian preference for the codex has often been noted.1 Allof the ‘early’ (i.e. dated up to the third/fourth century) manuscripts of thecanonical gospels discovered to date come from papyrus codices with theexception of one roll (P22) and one parchment codex (0171). Of moresignificance is the recent discovery that Christians produced early canonicalgospels in standard-sized codices.2 In the second and second/third centuriesthe preferred size for gospel codices approximated the small Turner Group 9.1format (W11.5–14 cm � H at least 3 cm higher than W), while in the thirdcentury a size approximating the taller but still portable 8.2 Group format(W12–14 cm � H not quite twice W) predominated (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2below).3 This finding is remarkable given that other early Christian codiceswere not produced in these formats.4 While the codex was the preferred

1 C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (Schweich Lectures,1977; London: OUP, 1979); C. H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London: OUPfor the British Academy, 1985), 19–23; L. W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 43–61, esp. 57–60, has updated the figures of Roberts and Skeat forChristian and non-Christian use of the roll and codex.2 See S. D. Charlesworth, ‘Public and Private: Second- and Third-Century Gospel Manu-

scripts’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias, eds., Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact andCanon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2009), 148–75.3 All of the 2nd- and 2nd/3rd-cent. codices including P108 are of similar size. The 9.1

subgroup is slightly taller than the ‘square’ Group 9, while ‘Group 10 is only a special case in aslightly smaller format of Group 9’ (E. G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania, 1977), 25). Likewise, there is little difference between subgroup 8.2and Group 8 codices (ibid. 20–2).4 Examination of the other early Christian codices in Turner’s Typology reveals that none of

the small number of 2nd/3rd-cent. Christian MSS (OT 36, OT 7, OT 9) have the same format as

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

Review

copy

vehicle for Christian texts in general, gospels seem to have been regarded as aspecial category. Early Christians acknowledged their importance by usingstandard-sized codices.

Early Christian use of the unique convention known as nomina sacra is alsowell-known.5 Roberts6 argued that there was early consensus about conven-tional treatment of the four nomina divina (¨��#, � �Å#�F#, �æØ#��#, ˚æØ�#)which was then extended to other words.7 He explained inconsistency inapplying contraction by scribal difficulty in ascertaining whether the referent,meaning, or context was sacred or mundane.8 This was certainly a factor in thevery earliest period, but there is a better explanation for apparent inconsist-ency in the period covered by our manuscripts. It was decided in the secondcentury that the words causing the interpretative difficulties should be sys-tematically contracted regardless of whether the referent, meaning, or contextwas sacred or mundane. The goal of this inclusive approach was to bring anend to inappropriate contraction.

When both of these things are considered—standard-sized gospel codicesand standardization in the use of nomina sacra—the notion of ‘catholic’consensus among early Christians becomes more than plausible. Given theevidence that he marshalled, Roberts probably overreached in arguing thatthere was a significant ‘degree of organization, of conscious planning, anduniformity of practice’ in the early church.9 But the early gospel manuscript

2nd/3rd-cent. gospels (Turner Group 9.1). In the 3rd cent., four codices (OT 9, P46, 529, and OT183/207a) are in Turner’s Group 8 like several gospels (P101, P75, and P121), but only OT 75A isin Turner Group 8.2, the preferred size for 3rd-cent. gospels. Moreover, most 3rd- and 3rd/4th-cent. Christian codices are in various other sizes.

5 For bibliography and a recent overview see Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts, 95–134.6 For Roberts the nomina sacra represent a nascent Christian creed, a kind of 1st-cent.

identity statement (Manuscript, 28). Along similar lines Hurtado argues that the four earliestnomina sacra appear to give visual expression to ‘the ‘binitarian shape’ of earliest Christian pietyand devotion’ (Earliest Christian Artifacts, 106, citing his earlier work including Lord JesusChrist: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 134–53).

7 Roberts identified ‘three classes’ of words: (1) the four divine names/titles whose contractionwas early and ‘invariable’; (2) ��F�Æ, ¼�Łæø�#, and #�Æıæ�# which are found contracted‘relatively early and frequently’; and (3) Æ� æ, ıƒ�#, #ø� æ, � �Åæ, �PæÆ��#, � �#æÆ º, ˜Æı��,and � ��æ�ı#Æº � which are contracted irregularly or inconsistently (Manuscript, 27). My ownresearch has shown that in 2nd- and 3rd-cent. gospel MSS ��F�Æ is virtually part of Robert’sclass (1) and Æ� æ is edging into his class (2): see S. D. Charlesworth, ‘Consensus Standardiza-tion in the Systematic Approach to Nomina Sacra in Second- and Third-Century GospelManuscripts’, Aegyptus, 86 (2006): 37–68.

8 Roberts, Manuscript, 27. V. Martin and R. Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Evangile de Lucchap. 3–24 (Cologny-Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961), 18–19, agree that use of contrac-tions led inevitably to scribal confusion. In contrast, Hurtado contends that there are only‘a comparatively small number of variations and inconsistencies’ and that we should nothave unrealistic expectations of ancient scribes (Earliest Christian Artifacts, 127). For a negativeview of inconsistency see C. M. Tuckett, ‘ “Nomina Sacra”: Yes and No?’, in J.-M. Auwers andH. J. Jonge, eds., The Biblical Canons (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 431–58.

9 Roberts, Manuscript, 41.

38 Scott Charlesworth


Review

copy

evidence now supports this conclusion. The two indicators of ‘catholicity’outlined here prove that there was consensus and collaboration betweenearly Christian groups. However, the same manuscript evidence also showsthat collaboration had its limits. Variation between manuscripts in the wordsthat were systematically contracted and in the use of lectional aids makes thisclear. Therefore, the term ‘catholicity’, which as used here has no reference tolater periods, should be understood to connote cooperative collaboration andnot hierarchical uniformity. All of this has far-reaching implications for the‘heterodox’-dominant view of early Christianity.

SYSTEMATIC CONTRACTION OF NOMINA SACRA

In early gospel manuscripts the sacred-contraction/mundane-plene distinc-tion is always maintained as regards Ł��#, and is not an issue with � �Å#�F# and�æØ#��#. But ŒæØ�# presented an interpretative problem. For example, when aslave is found to be faithful and wise at the coming of his owner, should ŒæØ�#be contracted or not (Matt. 24: 45–7)? Though the immediate context isstrictly mundane or non-sacred, ŒæØ�# might be considered sacred in widercontext because it is the Son of Man who will come unexpectedly (v. 44).Likewise, who is the ŒæØ�# who goes to a far country to receive a kingdom andthen return (Luke 19: 12–27, esp. 16, 18, 20, 25)? When other words like��F�Æ and Æ� æ were added, scribes would have encountered even moreproblems in deciding whether or not the context required contraction. Forinstance, does the Æ� æ of the prodigal son have a sacred referent (Luke 15:18–24, 32)? And what about the kingdom of heaven being like a certain kingwho made a marriage for �fiH ıƒfiH (Matt. 22: 2)? The resultant interpretiveblunders led to ‘standardization’ in the use of nomina sacra. This probablytook place in the second half of the second century and involved systematic orwholesale contraction of ŒæØ�# and several other words such as ��F�Æ andÆ� æ.10For example, in P66 every occurrence of ŒæØ�# is contracted. (In the

following examples sacred are followed by mundane occurrences and separ-ated by a double bar. Compendia are listed in the order nominative, vocative,accusative, genitive, and dative cases.)

. Œ� (4), Œ� (18), Œ� (5), Œ� (2) k Œ# (15: 15), Œ� (4: 11, 15, 19; 5: 7; 9: 36; 12:21), Æı�ø Œ� (20: 15), ı (13: 16; 15: 20)

Something similar is happening in the treatment of Æ� æ.

10 For a much more detailed discussion of what follows see Charlesworth, ‘ConsensusStandardization’, 37–68.

‘Catholicity’ in Early Gospel Manuscripts 39


Review

copy

. Åæ (37), Æ�Åæ, �æ (5), æ_, æÆ (28), Æ��æÆ (14:16), æ# (12), Æ�æ�#

(6: 45), æØ (7) k Æ�Åæ (4: 53), Åæ (6: 42; 8: 39, 56), æ�# (4: 20), Æ��æ�#(6: 49, 58), Æ�æ�# (8: 44, 53), æ# (4: 12; 8: 38, 41, 44), Æ��æø� (7: 22)

Again there seems to be an effort to be comprehensive. However, a number ofplene occurrences of the word eluded the scribe. Some 3/93 sacred and 6/14mundane instances were left uncontracted.11 Association with four divinenames might have inspired extension of conventional treatment to otherwords. For example, the Jews sought even more to put Christ to death becauseæÆ œ�Ø�� º�ª�� Ł� j œ#�� Æı�� Øø� �ø Łø (5: 18). The samebackground motivation might have led to a mundane contraction at 6: 42,where the scribe has written ŒÆØ �º�jª�� ıå’ �ı��# �#�Ø� Ø# � ßœ�# œøj#Åç’ �ıÅ��Ø# �Ø�Æ�� æÆ ϗ �Å- j �Å��æÆ, and where the relative pronoun �y mighthave been seen to lend Æ��æÆ sacred value.

But pious reasons for mundane contraction are inadequate when it comes toJohn 8. Apart from 4: 12, 20 and 6: 42, the problematicmundane contractions areall in this chapter. —Æ� æ when used of Abraham as the father of the Jewsis contracted three times (8: 39, 53, 56),12 and when referring to Satan 2/3 times(vv. 38, 41, 44).13There are also two sacred contractions (vv. 41–2), and two plenemundane occurrences in this chapter (vv. 44a, 53a). These were either the scribe’sonly moments of clarity in a generally drowsy after-lunch session (a number ofuncontracted sacred instances are overlooked, so the scribe would probably bemore careless when it came to non-sacred instances), or they slipped under hiscomprehensive-contraction approach along with a number of others. The latterexplanation is undoubtedly more attractive because choosing between sacredor mundane meaning was obviously not a factor. So rather than scribal errorresulting in contraction of 8/14 mundane instances, the scribe neglected tocontract 6/14 mundane instances. That means that with the goal of contractingall occurrences of Æ� æ he failed to do so 9/107 times.

The same phenomenon occurs in P75 in the treatment of ��F�Æ.

. �Æ (11), �# (3), �Ø (2) k �Æ (Luke 23: 46; 24: 37, 39; 8: 55; 9: 39; 11: 24;13: 11; John 3: 6, 8), ��Æ (Luke 11: 26), ��ı�Æ�Æ (Luke 10: 20), �Æ�ø�(Luke 6: 18), �Ø (Luke 8: 29; 9: 42; John 4: 23–4), �Æ#Ø (Luke 4: 36), ��Ø(John 3: 8)

11 The scribe is generally consistent in not contracting the mundane occurrences of the plural(6: 49, 58; 7: 22), but writes �Ø æ�# Å�ø� �� ø �æ�Ø ��ı�ø æ�#�Œı�Å#Æ� (4: 20).

12 The Jewish claim of descendancy from Abraham is rendered � Åæ Å�ø� Æ�æÆÆ�’ j �#�Ø�(8: 39). Further, we find the Jews asking Jesus �Å #ı �<�>ØjÇø� �Ø ��ı � Æ� �æ�# Å�ø� Æ�æÆÆ�’ j�� #� �Ø� #� Æ�ŁÆ�� (v. 53), and the penultimate word of Jesus on the matter is Æ�æÆ� Æ� �’ j � Åæ ß�ø�ÅªÆººØÆ#Æ�� œ�Æ œj�Å �Å� Å��æÆ� �Å� ��Å� (v. 56).

13 The scribe puts the words of Jesus to the Jews as �ı� Æ �øæÆŒÆ�� ÆæÆ ��ı æ# j �Ø��(8:38), and ß��Ø# j �Ø�� Æ �æªÆ ��ı æ# ß�ø� (v. 41), and finally ß��Ø# �Œ ��ı Æ�æ�# j ��ı�ØÆ��º�ı �#�� ŒÆØ �Æ# �ØjŁı��ØÆ ��ı æ# ß�ø� Ł�º��ÆØ j �Ø�Ø� (v. 44).



Review

copy

Again pious scribal activity may be gravitating outward from the nominadivina and extending sacred contraction to associated words. For example,sacred context (�Æ � Ł#, 4: 24) and perhaps theological background (cf. Luke8: 55) might have inspired the scribe to write that true worshippers must do so�� Ø ŒÆØ ÆºÅŁ�ØÆ (John 4: 23). But all other instances (Luke 4: 36; 6: 18; 8: 29;9: 39, 42; 10: 20; 11: 24, 26) except one (��ı�Æ�Æ, Luke 13: 11) refer to evil orunclean spirits, yet are contracted and overstroked. As with the contracted useof Æ� æ when referring to Satan in P66, there can be no confusion of sacredand mundane distinctions in these cases. Rather, the scribe is treating everyoccurrence of the word conventionally because of association with the HolySpirit. That is why the woman had suffered a �Æ of infirmity for eighteenyears (Luke 13: 11).The presence of the same approach in all of the larger continuous gospel

manuscripts suggests that most were produced in small copying centres14where ‘policy’ dictated some aspects of production.15 The wholesale approachto contraction represents an effort to produce ‘standard’ copies of manuscripts(although the usual textual variation would still apply). The further implica-tion is that there was agreement in various places to contract these wordssystematically. Thus, the manuscripts themselves point to a higher degree ofcommunication and collaboration between early Christian communities andtheir copying centres than has often been allowed.16Conventional approaches to manuscript production, in terms of codex size

and the wholesale contraction of nomina sacra, are indicative of an inter-connected ‘catholic’ church in the second half of the second century. (The useof nomina sacra by itself cannot be considered an indicator of catholicitybecause compendia occur in virtually every kind of Christian text anddocument.) However, the evidence does not appear to support the idea thata conciliar directive specified exactly what words were to be systematicallycontracted. Rather, variation in the words so treated from manuscriptto manuscript suggests that there was consensus adoption of a limitednumber of words. P66 and P45 contract ŒæØ�#, ��F�Æ, Æ� æ, #�Æıæ�#,and #�Æıæ�ø systematically,17 while P75 treats ŒæØ�#, ��F�Æ, and � �#æÆ º

14 See A. Mugridge, ‘What is a Scriptorium?’, in J. Frösén et al., eds., Proceedings of the 24thInternational Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1–7 August, 2004 (Helsinki: Societas ScientiarumFennica, 2007), 781–92, who shows that the word ‘scriptorium’ or a Greek equivalent was notused in the early period.15 P45 is the exception: see Charlesworth (‘Public and Private’, 163–7) and Table 2.2 below.16 On the movement of written communications and manuscripts between early Christian

groups see H. Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1995), 108–32. See also M. B. Thompson, ‘The Holy Internet: Communication betweenChurches in the First Christian Generation’, in R. J. Bauckham (ed.), The Gospels for AllChristians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 49–70; and L. Alexander, ‘Ancient Book Productionand Circulation of the Gospels’, ibid. 71–105.17 Note that both #�Æıæ�# and #�Æıæ�ø occur only once in P45.



Review

copy

systematically, but not Æ� æ, #�Æıæ�#, and #�Æıæ�ø. Such differencesillustrate that ‘catholic’ collaboration took the form of consensus, ratherthan formal, detailed agreement. This conclusion is confirmed by the varietyof text division markers used in controlled settings.

OTHER ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN SCRIBAL CULTURE

The codices in Table 2.1 share a number of common characteristics—uni-formity in size, hands in the semi-literary to (formative) biblical majusculerange, and the use of text division and punctuation as readers’ aids.18 Whenthese three factors are present as a group, especially in tandem with checkingand correction, the manuscript was probably produced in a ‘controlled’ settingfor public use in Christian gatherings (perhaps, as mentioned above, in smallcopy centres comprised of two or more scribes19). All of these things add up toquality control. Systematic contraction (not simply the presence) of nominasacra may be another sign of controlled production.20 It implies productionthat is to some extent policy-driven, something that quality control alsoimplies.

In contrast, codices with informal or documentary hands21 which lackfeatures conducive to public reading, even though they may be conventionalin size, were probably copied in uncontrolled settings for private use.22For example, the unconventional sizes of P52 and P45 point to uncontrolledproduction. The same is true ofP111,P119, andP37, but like the remaining third-century codices there are additional reasons for their ‘private’ designation—

18 Readers’ aids, lectional signs, and punctuation were developed from the 2nd cent. bconwards to assist word recognition within continuous rows of letters: G. Cavallo and H. Maehler,Hellenistic Bookhands (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 17, 19–21. For detailed discussion of whatfollows see Charlesworth, ‘Public and Private’, 149–52.

19 Gamble,Books andReaders, 120–1;G. Zuntz, ‘TheText of the Epistles’, in id.,Opuscula Selecta(Manchester: MUP, 1972), 252–68, esp. 266–8; id., The Text of the Epistles: a Disquisition upon theCorpus Paulinum (Schweich Lectures, 1946; Oxford: OUP, 1953), 271–5; Roberts,Manuscript, 24.

20 Charlesworth, ‘Consensus Standardization’, 66. P45, which has been designated private/uncontrolled, is an exception: see n. 15.

21 We can visualize broad but non-exclusive categories of 2nd- and 3rd-cent. hands rangingfrom literary and semi-literary through informal to documentary and scholarly. W. A. Johnson’sthree categories of hands parallel those used here: (1) ‘formal, semi-formal, or pretentious’; (2)‘informal and unexceptional’; (3) ‘substandard or cursive’: Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 102; cf. 161. The vast majority of literary rolls inhis samples fall into the first and second categories.

22 The categories of ‘public/controlled’ and ‘private/uncontrolled’ should not be seen asinflexible classifications to be imposed on the evidence. A manuscript might be used in bothpublic and private settings, or an individual might make or obtain a copy of a ‘public’manuscriptfor ‘private’ use or vice versa. But, in general, the documentary evidence can be divided intopublic and private categories.



Review

copy

informal or documentary hands and a lack of punctuation and readers’ aids. Yetin most cases standard sizes were still preferred, suggesting that convention wasstrong enough to dictate size even as the number of private copies of the gospelsincreased. Perhaps the same thing might be said of systematic contraction of

Table 2.1. ‘Public’ Gospel Manuscripts

MS Gospel(s) Turner Group Handa Text Divisionb Use/Prod.c

2nd centuryP103 Matt 10 semi-lit., bk � pub./cP77 Matt 10 semi-lit., bk � pg. vac. ek.? pub./cP90 John 9.1 semi-lit., bk ek. en. sp.? pub./cP104 Matt 9.1 formal round sp.? pub.?/cP64 þ 67 Matt 9.1 bibl. majuscule � : ek. pub./c2nd/3rd centuryP4 Luke 9.1 bibl. maj. � : ek. pg. pub./cP66 John 9 decorated round � : ’ > - , vac. ek. sp. pub./c3rd centuryP108 John 9.1 semi-lit., bk ? pub.?/c?P75 Luke, John 8 elegant maj. � : > sp. ek. pg. pub./cP121 John 8 semi-lit., bk sp pub.?/c?P95 John 8.2 bibl. maj. nil pub.?/c?P70 Matt 8.2 semi-lit., bk sp. pub.?/c?P5 John 8.2 semi-lit.,!doc. sp. pub./cP39 John 8.2 bibl. maj. sp. pub./c3rd/4th centuryd

P102 Matt 8 semi-lit., bk � pub./c

a bk ¼ literary (lit.)/bookhand; doc. ¼ documentary/cursive hand (with arrows indicating whether it iscloser to a bk or !doc. hand); inf. ¼ informal hand (which is in between [$] the other two hands).

b pg.¼ paragraphos; vac.¼ vacant line ends; ek.¼ ekthesis; en.¼ enlarged first letter of (sub)section; sp.¼space; � ¼ medial/high point; : ¼ dicolon; ’ ¼ apostrophe or line filler; > ¼ diple line filler; and ´ ¼ textdivision marker or miscellaneous stroke.

c In Tables 2.1 and 2.2 the intended use is either public (pub.) or private (priv.) and the type of productioncontrolled (¼ c) or uncontrolled (¼ u).

dP22 (roll) and 0171 (parchment codex) are excluded from Tables 2.1 and 2.2 along with five later MSS. (1)0162 (P.Oxy. 6.847, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 09.182.43) is dated iv by Grenfell and Hunt (P.Oxy. 6 (1908), 4), J. van Haelst (Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens (1976), no. 436), and Turner(Typology, 157). (2) P35 (PSI 1.1, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence) is dated v/vi by G. Cavallo,Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica (1967), 115, and G. Cavallo and H. Maehler, Greek Bookhands of the EarlyByzantine Period (1987), 22, who say that the hand is an example of ‘fully-fledged “Alexandrian majuscule” ’,the first traces of which appear in the 2nd cent., but which ‘does not reach its ideal form until the v/vi century’(23; cf. 5). (3) P62 (P.Oslo. inv. 1661, University Library, Oslo) is very probably 4th-cent. It is dated early iv,L. Amundsen, ‘Christian Papyri from the Oslo Collection’, SO 24 (1945), 121–40; iv, K. Aland and B. Aland(The Text of the New Testament (21989), 100), van Haelst (Catalogue, no. 359); iv(?), Turner, Typology, 148.(4) P80 (P.Monts.Roca inv. 83, Abadia de Montserrat) is probably 5th cent. or later as are other MSS of Johncontaining hermeneiai: see D. C. Parker, ‘Manuscripts of John’s Gospel with Hermeneiai’, in J. W. Childersand D. C. Parker, eds., Transmission and Reception (2006), 51. Cf. v–vi, Turner, Typology, 150. (5)P7 (Petrov553, Kiev, Ukrainian National Library, F. 301 (KDA) ) was dated v (von Soden) and iv–vi (Gregory), but itwas never photographed and was lost during the Second World War: see K. Aland, Studien zur Überlieferungdes Neuen Testaments (1967), 137–40, who agrees with Gregory’s classification of the MS as either a homily ora commentary and therefore not a NT papyrus (C. E. Hill kindly provided this reference).



Review

copy

nomina sacra because it occurs in ‘private’manuscripts likeP45. But this cannotbe verified because only singular instances of contraction in mundane contextsoccur in less well-preserved papyri.23

The ‘culture of standardization’ visible in the two ‘catholic’ indicatorsdiscussed above did not extend to these other aspects of scribal culture.This is perhaps understandable when manuscripts were being copied inprivate/uncontrolled settings. But even among public/controlled manuscriptsthere is no standardized use of punctuation and readers’ aids. In the case oftext division, local approaches seem to have had precedence over what mayhave pertained elsewhere. The use of text division seems to have been bothconventional and individual in that practice varied at the local level. Aswith variation in the words that were systematically contracted, the degree ofcollaboration evident in the standardized features of early gospels needsto be qualified by the implications of conventional, but far from system-atized, text division. That is, ‘standardization’ seems to have proceeded so farand no further, and this may be illustrative of the situation at large, whichcan be described as informal sharing or ‘consensus’ rather than formalagreement.

Table 2.2. Private’ Gospel Manuscripts

Ms Gospel(s) Turner Group Hand Text Division Use/Prod.

2nd centuryP52 John 5Ab semi-lit., bk sp.? priv./u3rd centuryP101 Matt 8 inf., bk$doc. nil ?/?P69 Luke 8.1 inf., bk$doc. ? priv./uP53 Matt 8.2 near doc./curs. sp.? priv.?/u?P107 John 8.2 semi-curs., doc. ? priv.?/u?P106 John 8.2 non-lit.,!doc. nil priv./uP109 John 8.2 non-lit., unprof. nil priv.?/u?P1 Matt 8.2 inf., bk$doc. � priv./uP28 John 8.2 !doc./curs. nil priv./uP111 Luke 7 semi-doc. nil priv./uP119 John 5 inf., bk$doc. nil priv.?/u?P45 Matt-John 4 elegant maj. � � priv./u3rd/4th centuryP37 Matt 7 doc./cursive sp.? � priv./u

23 The sole contractions in mundane contexts of ��F�Æ in P4 (�Ø) and P37 (�[Æ]) and of¼�Łæø�# in P22 (Æ�#) and P69 (Æ: ½��) may or may not be evidence of systematic contraction.Note that of these four MSS only P4 has been designated public/controlled.



Review

copy

MEDITERRANEAN TEXTS

Conservative scribal desire for a shared culture is evident on another front.Cavallo and Maehler have used the Herculaneum papyri in particular to‘contribute to the reconstruction of a typology of scripts that is Hellenisticrather than Ptolemaic’.24 Their analysis demonstrates that literary scripts ofthe Hellenistic and early Roman period ‘developed along very similar lines’ inEgypt and southern Italy (Herculaneum). Indeed, there may have been, to usetheir word, a koiné of Greek literary scripts across the Mediterranean world.25The implication is that literary scripts were common scribal property, like theChristian scribal conventions discussed above.26The ancient world lacked ‘an organised and systematic system for the

conveyance of personal correspondence’.27 Individual senders had to lookout for travellers, known or otherwise, who may or may not be reliable, todeliver their letters.28 Paul preferred to use associates, who often doubled as hisemissaries, as letter-carriers (see 1 Cor. 4: 17; 2 Cor. 8: 16–24; 9: 3–5; Phil. 2:25–30; cf. Eph. 6: 21–2; Col. 4: 7–9).29 But from the second century ad letter-carriers were apparently not too hard to find since correspondents are ‘quickto accuse each other of neglect in writing’.30 Gospel manuscripts must havemoved around the Roman world by the same means. For example, if P52 werecopied in or came to Egypt soon after it was copied, the Gospel of John, thoughapparently written in western Asia Minor,31 was known in Egypt by (orbefore) the middle of the second century.32 Rather than just being examples

24 Cavallo and Maehler,Hellenistic Bookhands, 6. Texts written in Greek have also been foundin Derveni (Macedonia) and Qumran.25 Cavallo and Maehler, Hellenistic Bookhands, 16–17.26 Cavallo and Maehler suggest that this may have been ‘due to intensified cultural exchanges

as a result of more intense political and economic relations between the Romans and theHellenistic world’ (Hellenistic Bookhands, 16).27 S. R. Llewelyn, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vii (Sydney: Ancient History

Documentary Research Centre, 1994), 1–57, here 51; id., ‘Sending Letters in the Ancient World’,TynBul 46 (1995): 337–56; H.-J. Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament (1998; Waco,Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 60–5. The Roman cursus publicus or state postal service was‘intended only for the purposes of the government, administration, and military’ (Klauck,Ancient Letters, 63).28 ‘The wealthy could send their own slaves or avail themselves of independent couriers, the

so-called tabellarii . . . There were also private tax collectors . . . [who] maintained their owncourier service which they shared with others for a price. Family members, friends, merchants,soldiers—all could be given letters when they went on journeys’ (ibid. 63).29 See Llewelyn, New Documents, 51–7, for discussion of the delivery of New Testament and

non-canonical letters.30 Llewelyn, New Documents, 27, citing H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee and Phraseologie

des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki: Finnish Academy, 1956), 64–7. Private lettersfound their way to Egypt from all parts of the Mediterranean world: see E. G. Turner, GreekPapyri: An Introduction (Oxford: OUP, 1968; rev. edn. 1980), 50–1, 96.31 See Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1.32 Roberts urged caution but listed an impressive array of papyrological authorities who

supported his 100–150 dating: see C. H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel



Review

copy

of local texts,33manuscripts of Egyptian provenance probably represent gospeltexts from around the Mediterranean world.34 Thus, shared scripts and themobility of manuscripts provide further support for the idea that the twoscribal conventions under discussion are indeed indicators of ‘catholicity’.

‘CATHOLIC ’ AND ‘ORTHODOX ’?

The evidence for later second- and second/third-century ‘catholicity’ presentsreal problems for the Bauer thesis.35 Did the Gnostic, Montanist, and Marcio-nite groups, which he claims dominated early Christianity36, reach a consen-sus about conventional approaches to manuscript production in the secondhalf of the second century? This is highly improbable when each group was busyinsisting on its own version of Christianity37 and when early non-canonicalgospel papyri38 are private manuscripts without indications of catholicity.39

in the John Rylands Library (Manchester: MUP, 1935), 16; id., ‘An Unpublished Fragment of theFourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library’, BJRL 20 (1936): 44–55 (47); id., P.Ryl. 3 (1938): 1–3.Turner (Typology, 100) accepted Roberts’s dating and G. Cavallo (Il Calamo e il Papiro (Florence:Edizioni Gonnelli, 2005), 183, 198) dates the papyrus to c.150. In contrast B. Nongbri argues, alsoon palaeographical grounds, that ‘any serious consideration of the window of possible dates forP52must include dates in the later second and early third centuries’: ‘The Use and Abuse of P52:Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel’, HTR 98 (2005): 46.

33 So e.g. K.W. Clark, The Gentile Bias and Other Essays (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 127: ‘All themanuscripts so far discovered, including the most sensational of recent discoveries, may enableus to recover no more than the early text in Egypt.’

34 E. J. Epp, ‘New Testament PapyrusManuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times’,in B. A. Pearson et al., The Future of Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 35–56.

35 See W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity, tr. Philadelphia Seminar onChristian Origins (ed. R. A. Kraft and G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). Bauer’s atmos-pherics underlie the perspective of B. D. Ehrman in particular: see his The Orthodox Corruption ofScripture (New York: OUP, 1993), 3–46. Cf. W. L. Petersen, ‘The Diatessaron and the FourfoldGospel’, in C. Horton (ed.), The Earliest Gospels (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 50–68.

36 Bauer argued that in the 2nd cent. central and eastern Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt,and Mesopotamia were dominated by heresy (Orthodoxy and Heresy, 170–2, 192–3). Indeed,‘heresy constituted Christianity to such a degree that a confrontation with the ecclesiastical faith[i.e., orthodoxy] was not necessary and was scarcely even possible’ (p. 170).

37 Bauer wrongly asserts that each version of Christianity had its own gospel (Orthodoxy andHeresy, 203).

38 There are early papyri of two known non-canonical gospels: (1) Gospel of Thomas—P.Oxy.4.654 (British Library, London, Pap. 1531), opisthographic roll; P.Oxy. 1.1 (Bodleian Library,Oxford, MS. Gr. th e. 7[P]), codex; P.Oxy. 4.655 (Houghton Library, Harvard University, SM4367), roll. (2) Gospel of Mary—P.Oxy. 50.3525 (Papyrology Rooms, Sackler Library, Oxford),roll; P.Ryl. 3.463 (John Rylands Library, Manchester, Greek Papyrus 463), codex. Whether thefollowing papyri are early evidence for the Gospel of Peter is contested—P.Oxy. 41.2949 (Papyr-ology Rooms, Sackler Library, Oxford), roll; P.Oxy. 60.4009 (Papyrology Rooms, Sackler Library,Oxford), codex. Of papyri possibly from unknown gospels, the so-called Egerton Gospel hasreceived the most attention—P. Egerton inv. 2 (British Museum, London, P.Egerton 1/P.Lond.Christ. 1) þ P.Köln 6.255 (Institut für Altertumskunde, Universität Köln, inv. 608), codex.

39 See S. D. Charlesworth, Early Christian Gospels (forthcoming).



Review

copy

Non-canonical gospels are also at a serious disadvantage in terms of frequencyof citation40 and preservation.41 If the ‘heterodox’ were in the majority for solong, non-canonical gospels should have been preserved in greater numbers inEgypt.42 But the earliest papyri provide ‘no support for Bauer’s view’.43Therefore, scribal conventions in second- and second/third-century gospelpapyri are indicative of ‘catholic’ collaboration and consensus, presumablyamong the ‘orthodox’.44As part of his imaginative analysis Bauer often assumed that literary texts

represented larger Christian groups or factions and not just their authors.45

40 If non-canonical gospels had as much or indeed more currency than the canonical gospels,we should expect to find frequent citations or allusions in the Apostolic Fathers and 2nd-cent.writers. But the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Peter are not cited by any known writer. Eventhe Gospel of Thomas has only two early 3rd-cent. citations: one which purports to be a quotationfrom the Gospel according to Thomas used by the Naassenes is more allusion than citation(Hipp., Haer. 5.7.20//GThomas 4; c.222–35), while the other (apparently from the same source)is again similar but worded quite differently (Hipp., Haer. 5.8.32//GThomas 11b). The only twoclose parallels are both 4th-cent. (Didymus, Comm. Ps. 88.8//GThomas 82; Macarius, Logia55.5//GThomas 113). See H. W. Attridge, ‘The Greek Fragments’, in B. Layton (ed.), NagHammadi Codex II,2–7, together with XIII,2, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926 (1) and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655(Leiden: Brill, 1989), 103–9; D. Lührmann with E. Schlarb, Fragmente apokryph gewordenerEvangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache (Marburg: Elwert, 2000), 131.41 After excludingP7 and including P. Papyrus inv. 2, in terms of preservation the four canonical

gospels outnumber the fournon-canonical gospels bymore than 4 to1 (35 canonical gospel to 8 non-canonical gospel fragments). If P. Oxy. 41.2949 and 60.4009 are not early fragments of theGospel ofPeter, the ratio is 5.8 to 1.When comparison ismadewith theGospel of Thomas alone, thefigures are:John (16), Matthew (12), Luke (6), Thomas (3), Mark (1). However, in terms of the conventionalvehicle for gospels, Luke is preserved in six codices and theGospel of Thomas in only one. Preferencefor Matthew probably explains the lack of Marcan papyri.

II Matt (P64 þ 67 P77 P103 P104), John (P52 P90), GPeter (P. Oxy. 60.4009), Egerton Pap. 2 þP. Köln 6.255II/III Luke (P4), John (P66), Peter (P. Oxy. 41.2949), GThomas (P. Oxy. 1.1)III Matt (P1P45P53P70P101), Mark (P45), Luke (P45P69P75P111), John (P5P22P28P39P45

P75 P95 P106 P107 P108 P109 P119 P121), GThomas (P. Oxy. 4.654, 655), GMary (P. Oxy.50.3525, P.Ryl. 3.463)

III/IV Matt (P37 P102 0171), Luke (0171)

42 See Roberts’s comments on the preservation of Gnostic papyri (Manuscript, 51–2).43 B. A. Pearson, Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt (New York: T&T

Clark International, 2004), 13–14. See also B. A. Pearson, ‘Earliest Christianity in Egypt: SomeObservations’, in B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring, eds., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986), 132–59; id., ‘Earliest Christianity in Egypt: Further Obser-vations’, in J. E. Goehring and J. A. Timbie, eds., The World of Early Egyptian Christianity(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 97–112. On alleged Gnosticpreference for the Gospel of John in Egypt see C. E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the EarlyChurch (Oxford: OUP, 2004); and J. Chapa, ‘The Fortunes andMisfortunes of the Gospel of Johnin Egypt’, VC 64 (2010): 327–52.44 The terms ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heterodoxy’ carry too much baggage from the later period to

encapsulate adequately the general naiveté of the earliest period. In general, earliest Christianitytolerated diversity. Proto-orthodoxy developed into orthodoxy through the escalating conflictwith increasingly extreme heterodoxy.45 T. A. Robinson,The Bauer Thesis Examined (Lewiston: EdwinMellen Press, 1988), 36–42; cf.

W. Völker, ‘Walter Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum’, tr. T. P. Scheck,



Review

copy

Such an approach is only credible when there is sufficient weight of evidence.46The combination of evidence adduced here shows that conventional textualpractices were already established among ‘catholic’ Christians by the secondhalf of the second century47 when standard-sized codices of the canonicalgospels were being produced for public use in Christian gatherings.48 Despitean increase in the number of private manuscripts, a similar situation pertainedin the third century. Questions about unity and diversity in relation togeographical areas will have to be left for others to answer.

JECS 14 (2006): 399–405 (¼ ZKG 54 (1935): 628–31). For surveys of scholarly reaction seeG. Strecker, ‘The Reception of the Book’, revised and augmented by R. A. Kraft, in Bauer,Orthodoxy and Heresy, 286–316; D. J. Harrington, ‘The Reception of Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxyand Heresy in Earliest Christianity during the last Decade’, HTR 73 (1980): 289–98;M. R. Desjardins, ‘Bauer and Beyond: On Recent Scholarly Discussions of hairesis in the EarlyChristian Era’, SecCent 8 (1991): 65–82. For a recent critique see A. J. Köstenberger andM. J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010).

46 F. Wisse, ‘The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner Diversity andConflict’, in C. Hedrick and R. Hodgson, Jr., eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and EarlyChristianity (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986), 177–90.

47 Contra R. S. Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt (Princeton: PUP, 2009), the standardsizes of 2nd- and 3rd-cent. gospel codices confirm the dates generally assigned by papyrologists.

48 Justin’s statement that the I��Å��Æ�Æ �H� I��ºø� (1 Apol. 67.3; Dial. 103.8,106.3, etc.) L ŒÆº�E�ÆØ �PÆªª�ºØÆ (1 Apol. 66.3; cf. Dial. 10.2; 100.1) were read at mid-2nd-cent.Christian services for the instruction of those gathered (1 Apol. 67.3–4) appears to have hadwider application than just Rome.



Indicators of “Catholicity” in Early Gospel Manuscripts

Documents

Transcript of Indicators of “Catholicity” in Early Gospel Manuscripts