Editing Magdalen papyrus (section)

== Date ==

[[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>64</sup> was originally given a 3rd-century date by Charles Huleatt, the one who donated the Manuscript to Magdalen College, and then papyrologist A. S. Hunt studied the manuscript and dated it to the early 4th century. But in reaction to what he thought was far too late a dating for the manuscript, Colin Roberts published the manuscript and gave it a dating of ca. 200, which was confirmed by three other leading papyrologists: Harold Bell, [[T. C. Skeat]] and [[Eric Gardner Turner|E. G. Turner]],<sup>[]</sup> and this has been the general accepted date of [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>64</sup> since.

But in late 1994, considerable publicity surrounded [[Carsten Peter Thiede]]'s redating of the Magdalen papyrus to the middle of the 1st century (37 to 70 A.D.), optimistically interpreted by journalists. His official article appeared in ''Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik'' the following year. The text for the layman was cowritten with [[Matthew d'Ancona]] and presented as ''The Jesus Papyrus'', Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996. (also published as: ''Eyewitness to Jesus'', 1996, New York: [[Doubleday (publisher)|Doubleday]]). Thiede's re-dating has generally been viewed with skepticism by established Biblical scholars. (For example, Peter M. Head in ''Tyndale Bulletin 46'', 1995.)<sup>[]</sup>

Philip Comfort and David Barret in their book ''Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts'' argue for a more general date of 150–175 for the manuscript, and also for [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>67</sup>, which they argue came from the same codex. [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>4</sup> was used as stuffing for the binding of “a codex of Philo, written in the later third century and found in a jar which had been walled up in a house at Coptos [in 250].”<sup>[]</sup> If [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>4</sup> was part of this codex, then the codex may have been written roughly 100 years prior or earlier.<sup>[]</sup> Comfort and Barret also show that this [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>4/64/67</sup> has affinities with a number of the late 2nd century papyri.<sup>[]</sup>

Comfort and Barret "tend to claim an earlier date for many manuscripts included in their volume than might be allowed by other palaeographers."<sup>[]</sup> The [[Novum Testamentum Graece]], a standard reference for the Greek witnesses, lists [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>64/67</sup> separately, giving the former a date of the 3rd century, while the latter is assigned ca. 200.<sup>[]</sup> Most recently Charlesworth has concluded 'that [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>64+67</sup> and [[Image:C3945eee4633c095c5059f9a67aca5f7.png]]<sup>4</sup>, though written by the same scribe, are not from the same ... codex.'<sup>[]</sup>