Skip to content

Labels, Critiques and Fair Play

My posting yesterday in which I simply advocated that scholarly work be engaged before we label it provoked some interest, but also what I regard an ill-considered response from Robert  Myles.  I don’t spend much time scanning the blogosphere, so I usually don’t track what other bloggers may write about me or what I have to say.  But Myles sent a comment indicating that he’d blogged in response on his site:  “The Bible and Class Struggle” here.  So, I read it.

I’m both a bit puzzled and somewhat offended.  I’m puzzled because Myles seems to take my posting (and some earlier publications as well) as if I’m engaged in his own focus on “the class struggle” but on the other side of that struggle.  I’m not . . . not on the other side, trying to keep down the masses, or prevent new and different voices in scholarship, or . . . well, you get my point.  I fail to see anything in what I’ve written that gives reason to think otherwise (although I suspect  that Myles might take the preceding statement as simply indicative of an insufficiently raised consciousness).

Had Myles read my posting more carefully, i.e., with an attempt first to understand what I was saying instead of first pegging me and then filtering everything through this label, he might have noted (among other things) (1) a complete absence of reference to Marxism, class struggle, or any of the various newer  approaches in biblical studies, (2) examples given of “labels” were “conservative,” “liberal”, and my references to the American scene with the often frosty relations between these two camps, (3) my candid acknowledgement that there is no “disinterested objectivity” (contra the impression given in Myles posting that I’m some kind of naïve objectivist), with simply a plea that we try our best to treat with fairness and accuracy the views of others (especially those with whom we think we disagree). It’s also disappointing to have one’s views so curiously distorted.

At one point, Myles states that I’ve been criticized in print previously for my allegedly narrow view of biblical studies, citing an article by James Crossley published in the online journal Relegere here.  But Myles curiously fails to mention my responding essay in the same journal available here,  in which (among other things) I offer some corrections to Crossley’s representation of my views.

(Actually, the story about these two essays is interesting.  Crossley, a UK colleague, wrote and published his essay in which he specifically engaged some of my publications, and I learned of it only because one of my former students drew it to my attention.  When I read it, the unfortunate misrepresentations became immediately apparent.  So, I contacted Crossley, indicating that I though he’d mis-read me on some points.  Crossley expressed some regret at the situation in which I learned of the essay and suggested that I contact the journal and request an opportunity to respond.  The editors apologized, acknowledging that they should have sent it to me and allowed a response.    And they kindly then invited me to write one.  For the record, before submitting that response, I sent it to Crossley for comments and any corrections to my portrayal of his views.  That’s just the way I ride.)

I’m also offended at some of the statements in Myles’s posting.  In particular, I take exception to the term “disingenuous”, which means “insincere, lacking candour.”  Effectively, to say that someone is being “disingenuous” is to accuse them of duplicity, of veiling their true position.  It’s a character-attack.  And that’s just the sort of inappropriate labelling that is so unhelpful, so misguided, misjudged, and counter-productive.  It is corrosive to the serious issues that Myles would like to pursue.

So, can we please discuss issues without impugning one another?  Could we please try, really hard,  to understand one another as a standard first step?  And how about this:  How about checking out our understanding of someone before we write a critique of them?    Just a thought.


More on “Labels” and Scholarship

Personally, I have little time for labelling scholars (e.g., “liberal,” “conservative,” etc.).  The only question for me is what someone is saying and the adequacy of their basis for saying it.  I hold the view that you should have to read a scholar’s work before you make up your mind about it.  How about that for radical!

But I know that lots of other folk, including lots of other scholars, seek to label everybody, and then use such labels through which to read/hear what someone says.  So, e.g., they’ll judge a book by its publisher, or by the institutional base of the author.  In the USA especially, this seems to be a big activity.  Nothing compares, of course, to the stupidly polarized political situation (Fox News has a lot to answer for when the last judgement takes place!).  But even sober scholars (who should know better) can be guilty of trying to peg other scholars and label them, often thereby determining in advance what to make of what these labelled scholars have to say.

Now it’s true that some people operate as activists of this or that “cause” or camp.  E.g., there are those who see themselves as defenders of a “conservative” position in NT studies, actively policing the lines to ensure that their notion of proper views are maintained, and quick to identify those not “conservative” in order to marginalize what they say/write.  Likewise, there are equally militant exponents of “liberal” positions who do similar things.  These folk actively fly a given flag, and operate as supporters of a given political stance in scholarship.  That they do so openly makes it better, actually, than the covert labelling often practiced by some others.

But to my mind, for scholarship to mean anything, the only thing that counts is what a given scholar says/writes, and how well based it is:  How well it takes account of all relevant evidence, how soundly it is reasoned, how well it engages the positions of others, etc.  Of course, the values, and even the personal qualities, of a given scholar may well shape what she/he writes.  Granted, there is no truly “unconcerned objectivity” in a subject as “hot” as the NT/Christian Origins.  But we can aim to be fair, honest with the data, transparent in how we work it.

I’ve occasionally been contacted asking if I’m “conservative” or “liberal” or “evangelical,” which actually pleases me.  For it suggests that maybe what I’ve written isn’t so easily labelled.  When asked, I may reply that I’m all those, and more, if I’m allowed to define what the terms mean.  But, really, I’m just a scholar of Christian Origins, seeking to understand what I regard as a fascinating phenomenon:  the origins and emergence of what became “Christianity”.  I’m sure I’ve got things to learn still (though I’ve been at it for nearly fifty years, as student and scholar), but I don’t know that I’m trying to fly some fleet flag or advance some party cause.  I’m just trying to do the best work I can, within my real limitations.  And I just want to assess what others do as best I can in terms of the same criteria by which I hope to be judged.

So, that’s the only label I think I would own.

Scholarship and “Political/Theological” Labels

Yesterday, I spent a few hours with a French-speaking visitor from Switzerland who had become interested in some questions about earliest Jesus-devotion, in part through reading some of my publications.  He indicated in particular that he’d read with interest my big volume, Lord Jesus Christ:  Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003).

Toward the end of a long discussion, he asked if I knew of a bookshop in Edinburgh where he might purchase a copy of the book.  I couldn’t give an answer readily, and showing a copy of the French translation asked why he didn’t purchase a copy of that.  He was startled, indicating that he had no idea that the book had been translated into French.  Nor, apparently, did the university libraries where he had studied have the book in French.  I was surprised too.  And then we wondered if the reason might be this:  The book was translated and published by Editions du Cerf (Paris), a Catholic-related publisher, and he had studied in Protestant faculties of theology in Switzerland.  Perhaps they didn’t pay so much attention, he wondered , to books from Catholic-linked publishers.

Well, I can’t say for sure, but that was the possibility that he offered.  And it reminded me of a matter that had emerged in our conversation earlier.  Remarking how it seems that English-speaking scholarship now dominates the NT field, whereas up through at least the 60s of the 20th century German-speaking scholarship set the agenda, he wondered why this was so, and why English-speaking NT scholarship often seemed . . . more lively, more interesting, more creative.  (That was his characterization, not mine.)

My response was to suggest that two factors might be relevant:  First, the institutional settings, and second the demographics.  In English-speaking circles (esp. the UK and North America), high-level NT scholarship tends dominantly to be located in university settings, where confessional issues aren’t a factor.  I.e., in a given university department of Religion you can have Protestants, Catholics, Jewish scholars, people of no particular religious allegiance (as is the case here in New College Edinburgh).  Moreover, there are often linkages and serious conversations with colleagues in other disciplines (e.g., literatures, social sciences, linguistics, classics, et al.).  In key European countries, however, you tend to have either Protestant or Catholic faculties of theology, linked directly to ecclesiastical bodies, and mainly in the business of training clergy for their respective faith communities.

I wonder if this doesn’t produce a kind of narrowed circle of scholarly conversation.  In one German university I visited some years ago, there was both a Protestant and a Catholic faculty of theology, and in the same building.  But I was told by students that there was scarcely any contact between them!  I don’t want to generalize from this one report, but I do just wonder if the institutional settings and arrangements are a factor in shaping the differences between some European and English-speaking scholarship.

Then, there are also the demographics.  In English-speaking scholarly meetings, you will have Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, non-religious NT scholars, males and females, and perhaps colleagues of various ethnic backgrounds. I suggest that this produces a much more diverse conversation in the field, with various approaches taken, various standpoints involved, etc.

Now I continue to admire deeply the high-quality work emanating from colleagues in various German-speaking and French-speaking nations, for example, and I mean no offence in what I write here.  Indeed, when it comes to formal preparation for serious NT scholarship (e.g., languages, etc.), my European colleagues often seem much advantaged.  I’m simply pondering that conversation yesterday and others that made me wonder what accounts now for the differences that one can see broadly in the kinds of work done and the way the NT field has developed over the last several decades.

Provenance of Aquila OT Genizah Manuscripts

In a recent article Edmon Gallagher has queried the widely-shared assumption that the manuscripts of Aquila’s translation of the OT attested among the Cairo Genizah fragments come from Jewish copyists.  Instead (or at least as plausibly), he contends, they may well be Christian copies acquired by Jewish readers, much later over-written with Hebrew texts, and so eventually in the Cairo Genizah:

Edmon L. Gallaher, “The Religious Provenance of the Aquila Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah,” Journal of Jewish Studies 64 (2013): 283-305.

Where these manuscripts of Aquila’s translation came from is in itself an intriguing question, of course.  For me, however, there is an additional reason to be interested, and that has to do with the continuing questions about the origins and significance of the ancient copyist practice known as the “nomina sacra.”  These are shortened forms of certain key words, typically with a horizontal stroke placed over them, the earliest and most consistently treated words = θεος (“God”), κυριος (“Lord”), Ιησους (“Jesus”), and Χριστος (“Christ”).  (For a fuller discussion, see my book, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, pp. 95-134.)

The Aquila fragments (portions of 1 Kings and 2 Kings) usually render the Hebrew divine name (“Tetragrammaton,” YHWH) in an attempt at palaeo-Hebrew characters (bearing in mind that the rest of the text is Greek), nine times by my count.  This is a practice attested much earlier as well (e.g., the remnants of a Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets, 8HevXIIgr, and the remnants of a Greek copy of Job, P.Oxy. 3522).  In contrast, the ancient Christian practice was to render YHWH with the nomina sacra form of Kyrios (e.g., ΚΣ, ΚΥ, etc.).

So, because of this, plus the discovery of these fragments in a synagogue genizah, most scholars have presumed that the manuscripts of Aquila from which the extant fragments come were likely produced by Jewish copyists.  But there have always been some curiosities that have made people scratch their heads a bit.

First, the manuscripts were obviously codices, the bookform early preferred by Christians in particular.  Now, to be sure, by the likely time that the Aquila manuscripts were copied (ca. 5th-6th century CE), the codex was becoming more and more preferred generally.  On the other hand, identifiably Jewish copies of biblical writings in codex form are hard to find much earlier than the 8th century CE.

Second, there are a couple of other copyist devices that seem curious.  The more well-known one is the single instance where YHWH is written as ΚΥ (and with the horizontal stroke above it typical of nomina sacra, fol. 2v, col. 1, line 15).  In addition (and less frequently mentioned), the word “Israel” is written in a nomina sacra form in all three occurrences.  These nomina sacra forms are much more typical of Christian copyist practice (indeed, scholars would typically take instances as themselves evidence that a given fragment likely comes from a Christian copyist).  So, are these nomina sacra forms evidence that the practice was at some point also taken up by some Jewish copyists?

Possibly.  But one additional thing to note:  The palaeo-Hebrew representations of YHWH aren’t done very skilfully.  E.g., whoever wrote them seems unable to distinguish between the Hebrew letters yod and vav.  Now, it’s possible that by the 5th/6th century a Jewish copyist had such a difficulty.  But it’s also possible that a non-Jewish copyist making a copy of a Jewish manuscript of Aquila’s translation tried to copy YHWH in palaeo-Hebrew characters, “drawing” them, so to speak, and not quite getting it right.

This would fit with the other data mentioned: The one lonely instance of the nomina sacra form, ΚΥ, a case where the copyist reached the end of a line and, without sufficient space on that line to write the palaeo-Hebrew YHWH, reverted to his usual practice of rendering it in the nomina sacra form for Κυριος?  Also the instance of “Israel” written in nomina sacra form could, then, further indicate a Christian copyist.

We know for sure that there are Christian manuscripts attested among the Cairo Genizah fragments:  palimpsests in which the under-writing is portions of the Gospels of Matthew and John, Acts and 1 Peter in Greek, and fragments of NT writings in a few other languages as well (bibliographical references here).  So, it wouldn’t be strange at all that copies of Aquila derived from Christian copyists were acquired as well.  In addition, the Genizah fragments include remnants of manuscripts of various NT writings in various translations, as noted by Friedrich Niessen, “New Testament Translations from the Cairo Genizah,” Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 6 (2009): 201-22.

As Gallagher grants, we can’t really settle this matter sufficiently to exclude totally either possibility.  But I agree with him that there are good reasons for treating seriously the option that the Aquila manuscript later used as a palimpsest in the Cairo synagogue may well have been a copy made by a Christian copyist.  In any case, the uncertainty about the matter should caution scholars about citing these fragments as any strong evidence for Jewish copyist practices.  In particular, it seems to me perilous to use the Aquila fragments as evidence that the nomina sacra originated as a Jewish scribal practice.

Oh, one more observation.  It appears that the Aquila Greek manuscript dates from the 5th-6th century CE, and then was over-written with a Hebrew text that is dated several centuries later.  This is another indication that ancient manuscripts could have a rather long life-usage, a point made by George Houston and on which I posted some time back here.

NT Texts in the Cairo Genizah: Bibliographical References

I’ve now got some further bibliographical references relating to my posting yesterday about NT manuscripts among the material from the Cairo Genizah.

(With thanks to Bill Yarchin for these initial ones):

Michael Sokoloff & Joseph Yahalom, “Christian Palimpsests from the Cairo Genizah,” Revue de l’histoire des textes 8 (1978): 109-32.

Natalie Tchernetska, “Greek-Oriental Palimpsests in Cambridge:  Problems and Prospects,” in Literacy, Education and Manuscript Transmission in Byzanitum and Beyond, eds. C. Holmes & J. Waring (Leiden:  Brill, 2002), 243-56.

Nicholas de Lange, “Jewish Transmission of Greek Bible Versions,” in XIII Congress of the Interenational Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana, 2007, ed. Melvin K. H. Peters (Atlanta:  Society of Biblical Liteature, 2007), 109-17.


In addition, I offer the following online resources on various matters:

Friedrich Niessen, “New Testament Translations from the Cairo Genizah,” surveying the various translations evidenced in the Genizah fragments:  here.

A bibliography of publications on the Cairo Genizah listed by the Cambridge University Library:  here.

Stefan Reif reporting on the discovery of some 350 manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah in Geneva in 2006:  here.

New Testament Texts in the Cairo Genizah

In the course of checking up on some details pertaining to another matter, I’ve come across a fascinating item:  Copies of NT texts among the many fragments of material from the ancient Cairo “Genizah”.  I confess that, although these items were published over a century ago, I didn’t know about them.

The publication I’ve only recently come to know is this one:  Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor-Schechter Collection, Including a Fragment of the Twenty-Second Psalm according to Origen’s Hexapla, ed. Charles Taylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900).

The term “Genizah” (alternate spelling, Geniza) refers to a kind of storeroom in ancient synagogues where worn out manuscripts were placed.  So, e.g., the Cairo Genizah contained masses of largely now-fragmentary manuscripts, which are now in Cambridge (where there has been a major project to identify, study and publish them).

“Palimpsests” are manuscripts in which one text was written over a previous text.  The NT texts in question are the “under-writing” and the later “over-writing” is one or another Hebrew texts (e.g., portions of the rabbinic text, Bereshith Rabbah) The under-writing in these fragments includes portions of Matthew 10, John 20, Acts 24, and just a few bits of 1 Peter.

Intriguing questions immediately form, such as these:  What is the provenance of the NT manuscripts that were acquired and then re-used at some later point?  Why were they acquired, likely by members of the ancient Cairo Genizah?

The Greek of the NT texts was written in remarkably fine “majuscule” (capital) letters, and was dated palaeographically to the late 5th or early 6th century CE.  Taylor proposed that the original codex from which the Gospel fragments come “must have been an Evangelisterium [liturgical Gospel book] or other Lectionary” (p. 89).   The copy of Acts and 1 Peter may have been part of another codex (Acts was typically copied with the “Catholic” epistles in ancient manuscripts).

Did the synagogue acquire copies of NT writings to get acquainted with them for purposes of dialogue and/or debate?

As well as these NT texts, Taylor’s slim volume also includes transcriptions and analyses of fragments of another palimpsest in which the under-writing is Psalm 22, perhaps remnants of what was originally a full Greek Psalter, and still another palimpsest whose under-writing was some of the Psalms according to the Greek Version by Aquila (made in the 2nd century CE).   A few years earlier, F. C. Burkitt had published another slim volume giving transcriptions of fragments of 1-2 Kings in the Aquila Version:  Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila, from a MS. formerly in the Geniza at Cairo Now in the Possession of C. Taylor D.D. Master of St. John’s College and S. Schechter D.Litt. University Reader in Talmudic Literature (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1898).

To return to the fragments with portions of NT texts, it’s clear that they are Christian copies of these texts, readily reflected in the “nomina sacra” forms at points (e.g., ΤΟΝ ΚΝ ["the Lord"] at John 20:11, and ΧΝ ΙΝ ["Christ Jesus"] at Acts 24:24).

By contrast, the Greek of the Psalms has the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) rendered as  “ΠΙΠΙ” (“pipi”) in the fragments of Origen’s Hexapla, and in the fragments of Acquila’s Version of the Psalms YHWH is consistently written in archaic Hebrew characters.  Further, in the one preserved instance of θεος (“theos“) in Psa 91:2 (LXX 90:2), it is written in full (i.e., not as a nomen sacrum).  These data suggest a derivation from Jewish copyists, who didn’t typically use the apparently Christian innovation of the nomina sacra.    (I’ve given a list of nomina sacra in an item by this name under the “Selected Published Essays” tab on this blog site.  For a fuller discussion, see my book, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, pp. 95-134.)

I’d be grateful if readers know of scholarly publications on the items published in the two volumes I’ve mentioned.  The two books themselves are now available in cheap reprint editions.


Scholarship for a Wider Public

At a special day-symposium, “How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?” for the general public a week or so ago, one attendee rightly complained to me that so little of biblical scholarship gets disseminated to a wider public.  Well, one effort that I’ve made is an eight-part video series, “Devotion to Jesus: The Divinity of Christ in Earliest Christianity,” produced and distributed by the Wesley Ministry Network.

This DVD format series is intended for a general public and comes with accompanying study booklet, discussion topics/questions, and guidance for using the material as part of a short-term study series.

More information on the Wesley Ministry Network and the various courses available is available here.

You can watch the first lesson in my own course on Youtube here.

PhD Studies: A Recent Guide for Applicants

Further to my earlier posting about PhD programmes in the USA and the UK here, I notice a recent book written for potential applicants (and aspiring scholars) with special reference to New Testament:  Prepare, Succeed, Advance: A Guidebook for Getting a PhD in Biblical Studies and Beyond, by Nijay K. Gupta (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011).

Gupta is himself a recent PhD and recently successful both in publishing a book from his PhD thesis and in obtaining an academic post.  So, in general, he is well informed and able to advise prospective applicants.  But also see the review (which raises a couple of critical points) here.

Also, a few years back doctoral students in American and UK PhD programmes wrote essays about their experiences that were published on the Society of Biblical Literature web site here.


Jesus in Earliest Christian Prayer

I’ve received news that the multi-author volume has been published in which my essay, “The Place of Jesus in Earliest Christian Prayer and its Import for Early Christian Identity,” appears:  Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation, eds. Reidar Hvalvik & Karl Olav Sandnes (Tuebingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2014).  I’ve placed the pre-publication version on this blog site under the “Selected Essays” tab.

I’m pleased to have been invited to take part in the project from which this volume emerged, and honoured to be include with the other fine scholars in the volume.  Here are the contributions:

REIDAR HVALVIK and KARL OLAV SANDNES, “Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation: Introducing the Project2

MIKAEL TELLBE, “Identity and Prayer”

LARRY HURTADO “The Place of Jesus in Earliest Christian Prayer and its Import for Early Christian Identity”

REIDAR HVALVIK, “Praying with Outstretched Hands: Nonverbal Aspects of Early Christian Prayer and the Question of Identity”

GEIR OTTO HOLMÅS, “Prayer, ‘Othering’ and the Construction of Early Christian Identity in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke”

MIKAEL TELLBE, “Prayer and Social Identity Formation in the Letter to the Ephesians”

ANNA REBECCA SOLEVÅG, “Prayer in Acts and the Pastoral Epistles: Intersections of Gender and Class”

OLE JACOB FILTVEDT, “With Our Eyes Fixed on Jesus: The Prayers of Jesus and His Followers in Hebrews”

CRAIG R. KOESTER, “Heavenly Prayer and Christian Identity in the Book of Revelation”

KARL OLAV SANDNES, “The First Prayer”: Pater Noster in the Early Church”

HANS KVALBEIN, “The Lord’s Prayer and the Eucharist Prayers in the Didache”

REIDAR AASGAARD, “What point is there for me in other people hearing my confessions?” Prayer and Christian Identity in Augustine’s Confessions

ANASTASIA MARAVELA, “Christians Praying in a Graeco-Egyptian Context: Intimations of Christian Identity in Greek Papyrus Prayers”

NICLAS FÖRSTER, “Prayer in the Valentinian Apolytrosis: A Case Study on Gnostic Identity”

GLENN WEHUS, “Bring Now, O Zeus, What Difficulty Thou Wilt.” Prayer and Identity Formation in the Stoic Philosopher Epictetus

REIDAR HVALVIK and KARL OLAV SANDNES, “Prayer and Identity Formation: Attempts at a Synthesis”

 The publisher’s online catalogue entry on the book is here.

More on Acts of the Apostles

Further to my posting yesterday on Acts of the Apostles, a few more notes about recent scholarly work, and also about the earliest manuscript evidence.

The uniqueness of Acts raises the question why/how someone conceived it and wrote it.  It’s a major literary product, and so would have required some considerable thought and effort.  The Gospels show that in the early period various people thought it worthwhile to write narratives of Jesus’ ministry, but apparently only the author of Acts thought it important to write that sort of consecutive account of Christian origins.

What role did Acts play, and how was it used in the earliest period after its release?  For a recent study of the early “reception” of Acts:  Andrew Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).  Note also his article:  Andrew Gregory, “The Reception of Luke and Acts and the Unity of Luke-Acts.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (2007): 459-72.

I’m not entirely confident in some of his judgements expressed in his book, however.  In particular, I think he buys too readily (pp. 27-28) William Petersen’s claim (similar to one made by Helmut Koester) that the early manuscripts extant are all the product of a late 2nd century “recension” and so give us scant insight into the state of the text of NT writings before that.  Gregory gives (therefore?) only the briefest treatment of the manuscript evidence (pp. 307-8), citing P45 (P.Chester Beatty I) as “the earliest extant manuscript of Acts which allows for firm textual evaluation” (308 n. 50), expressing uncertainty about P29, P38 (“P38 appears to be Western in character . . . as also does P48″).

But I rather suspect that the late 2nd-century CE recension posited by Petersen & Koester is a phantom.  What ecclesiastical structure in the 2nd century CE was there to carry out such a project and, more importantly, to secure its widescale success in supposedly suppressing the allegedly “wild” state of the NT text of the 2nd century?  Certainly, we should be consider all possibilities, but sound historical method surely requires us to chasten our hypotheses with the extant evidence.

And when we look at that evidence (i.e., particularly the earliest manuscript data) we don’t actually get the impression of either a “wild” state of textual transmission or a fixed recension.  Instead, in the case of practically any of the NT writings for which we have early manuscript evidence (i.e., from the 2nd/3rd centuries CE), what we seem to see is a certain spectrum of transmission practices (which argues against a recension), but a spectrum that doesn’t exhibit the alleged “wildness” either.

I described this in an essay published several years ago: Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, eds. J. W. Childers & D. C. Parker (Piscataway, N.J.:  Gorgias Press, 2006), 3-27.  The pre-publication version of that essay is on this blog-site here.

One of the things I pointed out in that essay is the fallacy in arguments about the supposed state of the text of NT writings based on “citations” in early Christian writers.  There was a clear/demonstrable difference between the conventions followed in the Roman era for citing/using a text and the conventions followed in copying a text.  The fallacy is in ignoring this and assuming that the freedom exercised often in ancient citations of texts is direct evidence of a supposedly equal freedom exercised in copying that text.

To return to Acts, however, I list the manuscripts dated palaeographically to the period roughly pre-300 CE in the appendix to my book, The Earliest Christian Artifacts:  Manuscripts and Christian Origins (esp. p. 220).  These include (to cite them using the Gregory-Aland system) 0189 (from a parchment codex), P91, P53, P38, and P48 and P29 (these last two dated 3rd/4th century CE, i.e., 300 CE +/- ca. 25 yrs).  But, so far as Acts is concerned (at least thus far), the “jewel in the crown” among early manuscripts is surely the Chester Beatty codex, P45 (mid-3rd century CE).

P45 is perhaps more often cited as the earliest clear instance of a 4-Gospel codex.  But it is also noteworthy for the inclusion of Acts with the four Gospels in one book.  For, in other (albeit later) manuscripts Acts was more typically connected with NT epistles, apparently read as a kind of narrative framework for them.  But in P45, apparently, Acts serves as the continuation-narrative of the Gospels, in a sense carrying the ministry of Jesus forward in the establishment of the early church.  This means that P45 is not only an important witness to the text of Acts, but is also a noteworthy witness to one early reading/usage of Acts.  (For a set of studies on P45 and some issues to which it relates, see:  The Earliest Gospels:  The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels–The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P45, ed. Charles Horton (London:  T&T Clark, 2004).



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,077 other followers