By: Abdul-Rahman (Brent) Klimaszewski

 

Revisiting Rebuttal to the fraud Carsten Peter Thiede's fraudulent dating of the "Magdalen Papyrus" (a.k.a the "Huleatt Manuscript", "Jesus Papyrus", and "Papyrus #64"

 

I have discussed this before; but I've recently noticed Pagan Trinitarian Christians trying to say the Magdalen Papyrus was written circa 50 C.E.  This is an ABSURD LIE.  These Pagan Christians call the "Magdalen Papyrus" by the name the "Huleatt manuscript" to attempt to be sneaky as a search on Google.com will return only a little over 1,000 results which most of these tend to be Pagan Christian apologist websites.  Again, The Huleatt Manuscript is the EXACT SAME THING as what is called the "Jesus Papyrus" (by Pagan Christians), the "Magdalen Papyrus" by thorough researches; and "Papyrus 64".  Again Magdalen Papyrus=Huleatt Manuscript=Jesus Papyrus=Papyrus 64!

 

The reason the Magdalen Papyrus is often called the Huleatt Manuscript is because; I quote: While the manuscript is alleged to be a recent discovery (not by Thiede, however), it actually has been known in academic circles for almost a century. Charles B. Huleatt purchased it in Luxor in 1901 and presented it to the Magdelen College Library in Oxford, England.[6] Colin H. Roberts studied and published it in 1953,[7] and it has been the object of scholarly discussion for almost half a century—hardly a recent discovery.  (From: http://www.kjvonly.org/jamesp/jdprice_magdalen.htm)

 

So clearly some people call it the "Magdalen Papyrus" because it is located at Magdalen College Library in Oxford, England.  Others, mostly Pagan Trinitarian Christian apologists, call it the "Jesus Papyrus" because they believe the idiot Pagan Christian pseudo-scholar Carsten Peter Thiede's fraudulent dating of the fragments to circa 60 C.E.  While others call it the "Huleatt Manuscript" because it was purchased by Rev. Charles B. Huleatt in Luxor, Egypt in 1901 C.E.  While others simply call it by it's Papyri number, "Papyrus 64".

 

I recommend you read my earlier in depth article on this subject: http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdul-rahman_klimaszewski/7q5_and_magdalen_papyrus.htm

 

But for this article let us quickly summarize the reasons the Magdalen Papyrus (a.k.a. Jesus Papyrus, Huleatt Manuscript, and Papyrus 64) are dated by all authentic researchers at circa 200 C.E.

 

When the fragments were finally published by Colin H. Roberts in 1953, illustrated with a photograph, the hand was characterized as "an early predecessor of the so-called 'Biblical Uncial'" which began to emerge towards the end of the 2nd century. The uncial style is epitomised by the later biblical Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Comparative paleographical analysis has remained the methodological key for dating the manuscript: the consensus is, ca AD 200.

The fragments are written on both sides, conclusive proof that they came from a codex rather than a scroll. More fragments, published in 1956 by Ramon Roca-Puig, cataloged as P. Barc. Inv. 1 (Gregory-Aland P⁶⁷), were determined by Roca-Puig and Roberts to come from the same codex as the Magdalen fragements, a view which has remained the scholarly consensus.

(From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus).

 

 

VERY IMPORTANT: The Magdalen Papyrus (a.k.a. "Huleatt manuscript" and the "Jesus Papyrus") was written on a CODEX not a scroll.  Codex’s came LATER after the use of scrolls.

A scroll is a roll of parchment, papyrus, or paper which has been written upon. They were used in ancient civilizations before the codex or bound book was invented in the first century. (From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll).

 

NOW Codex

A codex (Latin for block of wood, book; plural codices) is a handwritten book, in general, one produced from Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages. The scholarly study of manuscripts from the point of view of the bookmaking craft is called codicology. The study of ancient documents in general is called paleography.

New World codices were written as late as the sixteenth century (see Maya codices and Aztec codices).

The codex was an improvement upon the scroll, which it gradually replaced as the written medium. The codex in turn was replaced by the printed book.

Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Some codices 3 Notes 4 See also 5 References

[edit] History

The Romans used similar precursors made of reusable wax-covered tablets of wood for taking notes and other informal writings. The first recorded use of the codex for literary works dates from the late first century AD, when Martial experimented with the format. At that time the scroll was the dominant medium for literary works and would remain dominant for secular works until the fourth century. Julius Caesar, traveling in Gaul, found it useful to fold his scrolls accordion-fashion for quicker reference.^{[citation needed]} As far back as the early 2nd century, there is evidence that the codex—usually of papyrus—was the preferred format among Christians: in the library of the Villa of the Papyri, Herculaneum (buried in AD 79), all the texts (Greek literature) are scrolls; in the Nag Hammadi "library", secreted about AD 390, all the texts (Gnostic Christian) are codices.

(From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex).

 

Next let us read some excerpts from an article by Sigrid Peterson, Ph. D. on the Magdalen Papyrus the link for her whole scholarly article is here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede2.txt

 

Sigrid Peterson clearly debunks Thiede's argument as follows (his redating refers to Carsten Peter Thiede)

His redating on paleographical grounds is seriously flawed in

four ways. First, he does not indicate how four great

paleographers could all concur on a lowered redating of the

Matthew fragments to a date ca. 200 and still be in error.

Second, he compares letters in these fragments from

 Egypt

[Luxor is purchase place, hand compares with {P}4, from Philo

codex binding] with material from

 Herculaneum in

 Italy (that

may be from ca. 40 b.c.e. on provenance grounds, with a

terminus ad quem of 79 c.e.) and from

 Qumran in The Land, and

from elsewhere in the wilderness of the

 Dead Sea (Naxal Xever).

Third, he compares individual letters without an appreciation

of the characteristics of their formation or the hands of which

they are a part. Fourth, his assembly of mss for comparisons is

not a coherent set, and was apparently chosen primarily as a

group of mss which COULD be dated in the first century c.e.,

regardless of their other features.

Thiede does not recognize that a two-column codex such as {P}

64 --Magdalen Gr. 17 -- has no similarly-constructed examples

with which to be compared. He also does not recognize the need

to provide some explanation for the appearance of a two-column

codex at least a century earlier than all other examples of

two-column codices. See Turner, op. cit.

Finally, Thiede (1995) and Roberts (1953) both transcribed the

fragments as though they contained <italics>nomina sacra

</italics>, and as though the use of nomina sacra was not

restricted to KURIOS, KURIE, or QEOS, QEOU, but rather extended

to abbreviations of IHSOUS. However, and I must state this

emphatically, there is <italics>NO VISIBLE SUPPORT</italics>

for reconstructing <italics>nomina sacra</italics> of IS or IH.

That is to say, almost no ink-papyrus combination exists for

the areas where these have been indicated. In working out the

stichometry, using the available text of Matthew 26 in the

relevant verses, I was able to supply alternative lines in

every case where Thiede proposed abbreviation or suspension

(use of first and last letters), except for the proposed use of

letters instead of a word to signify the number 12. There, I

agree, the stichometry (line length) is such that IB (Greek

letters standing for 12) must be read. This was also Roberts's

(1953) transcription. 

 

 

After reading a great excerpt by the scholar Sigrid Peterson, Ph. D.; let us read another excerpt from an article by Dr. M D Magee: the whole article can be found at this link: (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/210Thiede.html).

 

Media Response

The media were not critical and said things like, “new papyrus fragment shows that followers of Jesus knew he was divine”. Later Thiede with a hack called Matthew d’Ancona wrote a bestselling book, The Jesus Papyrus, (Eyewitness to Jesus, in the USA ). Yet, Thiede’s redating would not qualify the fragments as pieces of an “eyewitness” account, a claim Thiede and his hack accomplice had made. Daryl D Schmidt, in the Journal of Higher Criticism in 1996 said in exasperation, “What is so amazing is that there is no evidence here whatsoever."

The Times of London wrote, “not since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 has there been such a potentially important breakthrough in biblical scholarship.” Such a prestigious weekly as Time was utterly sycophantic about the book even though scholar, Graham Stanton, had been interviewed and explained to the editor the worthlessness of it. His views were scarcely mentioned, while Thiede was made out to be a Robin Hood fighting the cynical establishment. Robin Hoods are needed but Thiede is trying to buttress the “Adamandevers” of the Christian establishment—he is a Sheriff of Nottingham not a Robin Hood!

Der Spiegel, the German popular magazine, gave a much more balanced and scholarly account, notwithstanding its populist appeal. Spiegel rejected Thiede’s claims. Biblical Archaeology Review called Thiede’s work, “junk scholarship”, earning a letter from Thiede himself, but Hershel Shanks, the editor, politely replied that even scholars to whom Thiede appeals reject his claims. Meanwhile Graham Stanton had written his own popular but scholarly refutation in his book, Gospel Truth? Buy it! Especially if you have been gulled by d’Ancona and Thiede.

So, ignoring all the hype, the whole caboodle is a confidence trick. Sigrid Peterson of the University of Pennsylvania has comprehensively shown in Judaios Thiede’s lowering of the date for P64—P Magdalen Gr 17—is methodologically unsound. Mistaken methods invalidate Thiede’s inference about the date of the copy of Matthew from the P Magdalen Gr fragments. His redating is opposed to those of Bell, Skeat, Turner, and Roberts, all of whom agree that these fragments should indeed be redated but from the third or fourth centuries to c 200 AD, not the first century. Thiede does not explain why these authorities on papyrology are wrong. Skeat completely ignores Thiede in a 1997 review of work of these papyri in New Testament Studies. Thiede’s is a minor contribution—he has shown simply that what was once P Magdalen Gr 18 is now P Magdalen Gr 17.

Continuing on:

 

Thiede gives the history of dating the fragments. They were acquired at Luxor , in 1901, by the Rev Charles B Huleatt (Abdul-Rahman's quote: hence Magdalen Papyrus a.k.a. the Huleatt Manuscript), who suggested third century. A S Hunt, who with Grenfell assigned manuscripts which came from codices to third century or later, thought the fourth century was more likely. While Hunt and Grenfell were wrong to think that codices did not appear until the third century, codicological information is important. No one disputes that these fragments come from a codex. Eric G Turner set a lower bound for codex development as the second century AD based on the dating of “Christian” materials, with Greek literary codices becoming prevalent a century later. Thiede does not address the implications of his findings for codicology. Should Turner’s dates for codices be lowered? One assumes they should but Thiede, knowing his work is feeble, will not say.

Roberts, with the agreement of Bell , Skeat and Turner, all authorities in the palæography of Greek manuscripts, reassigned P64 to c 200 AD from its palæography. Thiede does not say why these eminent people were incorrect. Instead, he argues that new papyri, published since Roberts’ work, allow an earlier date. He mentions the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll, texts from Herculaneum before 79 AD, the eruption of Vesuvius, and a recent publication that lowers the date of Bodmer-Chester Beatty Papyrus II (P46) from c 200 to c 100 AD. From these examples some of which might be datable to the first century, he looks for individual letter forms from the Matthew fragments which are not unlike letter forms in his samples chosen only by their date. In short, he adduces likenesses of individual letters in the Matthew fragments to these early papyri from various parts of the Mediterranean , even seeing resemblances between serifed letters from serif-style manuscripts and unserifed letters from P64, where overall the style is lacking in serifs or other ornamentation.

Even then all his data do not fit his conclusion. The letter epsilon is squared off before 200 BC and after 200 AD, and is rounded during the 400 years in between. In these fragments of Matthew, the epsilon is not usually rounded but is squared off, and so the fragments were not written between 200 BC and 200 AD. The doubt in some cases makes the date of 200 AD just tenable. Without the knowledge gained in this way, Thiede’s redating contradicts what is known. It does not follow accepted standards of practice, and is therefore suspect.

Reliance solely on individual letter forms is unsound. A sound method would assemble a group of related manuscripts without regard to their date, then place the specific manuscript at its optimum place in the series. This method has good results in palæographically dating the Hebrew-Aramaic manuscripts of the Dead Sea . Where there are few examples, good palæographical comparisons cannot be made and dating is hazardous. Thiede’s assembly of manuscripts for comparisons is not a coherent set, and was apparently chosen primarily as a group of manuscripts which could be dated in the first century AD, regardless of their other features. To use the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll as a basis for dating, as Thiede has done, is to compound the unreliability of his palæographical dating. There is no reason to think that Thiede has been striving for objectivity, when the methodology is so closely related to the results obtained.

Nomina Sacra

Thiede concludes his argumentation with a discussion of nomina sacra, two or three letter representations of holy names such as for Iesous and Kyrie. Early Christian manuscripts abbreviated “sacred names” used for Jesus, God, and Spirit, as well as a dozen other associated nouns, such as Father, Son, Heaven, David , Israel and Jerusalem . Thiede contends that the very act of using such an abbreviation was a visual way for Christians to show that “Jesus was Lord and God”. On this basis alone rests the claim repeated in the news media that Thiede had discovered evidence that Jesus was considered divine by his own disciples. There is of course no such evidence. Thiede’s argument, from Roberts’ suggestion, that nomina sacra, might have been used—but cannot now be seen because the papyrus is broken—is flimsy. Usually they are denoted by an overhead line, and none can be seen on these fragments.

Typical of Thiede’s disingenuousness, the evidence argues against him. The context of the abbreviation in Matthew 26:22 is someone calling Jesus Kyrie, which can mean merely “Sir” or “master”, rather than “Lord.” In the other earliest surviving New Testament papyri, this word gets abbreviated regardless of what it means, including when it is addressed to Philip in John 12:21 and when Jesus uses it in parables about masters and slaves. Likewise the name Jesus gets abbreviated even when it refers to Joshua (Heb 4:8) and to Justus (Col 4:11). Such mundane uses of the “sacred name” abbreviations would totally surprise the naïve reader who might well assume that Thiede was telling the whole truth.

Thiede argues that Kim’s lowered dating of P46 (Bodmer II), which has clear nomina sacra, supports Roberts’s speculation that nomina sacra were used in the first century AD. Roberts and Thiede both reconstruct nomina sacra in unclear or missing portions of the fragments of P64. Where documents have similar phraseology, such as legal and commercial documents, one document can be reconstructed from another. In specific cases, there is no such basis. Basing an argument on reconstruction then is arguing from uncertain evidence.

Roberts is methodologically within bounds in so doing for a manuscript of c 200 AD, because other evidence exists to support the practice. Thiede is methodologically less secure in reconstructing nomina sacra for a date around 70 AD, since he relies on their plain existence only in Kim’s redating of P46. Thiede’s hypothesis depends on nomina sacra in the text of these fragments of Matthew 26, and specifically on the nomen sacrum IS for IHSOUS. Thiede and Roberts both transcribed the fragments as though they contained nomina sacra, and as though the use of nomina sacra was not restricted to KURIOS, KURIE, or THEOS, THEOU, but rather extended to abbreviations of IHSOUS. There is no independent support for reconstructing nomina sacra of IS or IH.

Alternative lines can be constructed in every case where Thiede sees abbreviation except for use of letters instead of a word to signify the number 12, where IB (Greek letters for 12) must be read. The layout of visible letters (stichometry or line length), using the relevant verses of Matthew 26, in this one case supports Thiede. In the other cases, other plausible reconstructions of the lines are also possible. Elsewhere, the possibilities for reconstruction are many.

In the case of Matthew 26:31 in the fragment, many argue that the name IHSOUS must be suspended, using IH, or abbreviated, using IS, for the line lengths to come out right. The text we now have suggests that the first line would read “autoisoiesouspanteshumeis” for an impossible 25 letters. Thiede suggested “autoiso[ISpantes]” at 15 letters. But “autoiso[iesouspantes]” at 19 letters is possible. The word “autois” enters the margin by one letter, and the next five letters occupy the space of four in the following line. This would mean that a line of 19 letters would be no longer than a line of 16 or 17 letters even with IHSOUS written out.

In the absence of more data, such as the Barcelona fragments Thiede mentions but does not use—P67 which is part of the same manuscript—might provide, these fragments do not give any firm evidence for nomina sacra from either Roberts’s date of c 200, or Thiede’s first century dating. He also provides no reason for dropping P4, the Paris Luke fragment, which C H Roberts assigned to the same manuscript:

There can in my opinion be no doubt that all these fragments come from the same codex which was reused as packing for the binding of the late third century codex of Philo.

Graham Stanton has found that binding the four gospels into one codex bagan no earlier than about 150 AD. If the fragments P4, P64 and P67 prove to be from the same codex as Roberts thinks they are then Thiede’s hypothesis is dealt another heavy blow. T C Skeat, after 60 years of experience, declares that the script of the three papyri “agree even in the smallest details, so far as these can be checked,” P64 and P67 being such small fragments. Thiede’s research is flawed in its conception and its presentation, and his findings therefore have no basis. It is another lunatic attempt by a Christian to do God’s work by cheating. Thiede has admitted that his purpose was to promote belief. It serves as an example of what Christians have often done and continue to do. Issue bogus research and fabrications to fool the gullible.

Thiede is interested too in a fourth piece of Greek papyrus, a tiny fragment from Qumran Cave 7. He champions the proposal that this belongs to the gospel of Mark (Mk 6:52-53) as against other identifications, such as Jeremy 7:3b-5. The Qumran fragment has fewer than a dozen complete letters and the only complete word is “kai” (“and”). To make it match Mark 6, Thiede has to justify a spelling variation, an entire missing phrase, and special reconstructions of broken-off letters.

Thiede’s forte is creating scenarios that answer critics’ objections to his astonishing suggestions. How would Mark end up in a Qumran cave? As Jewish Christians fled Jerusalem for Pella in 62 or 66 AD, they dropped their scrolls off for the Essenes to deposit in the caves! Thiede further speculates that when they returned to Jerusalem a decade after the war they built the first synagogal church on Mount Zion on “the rubble of their former living quarters”.

 

Lastly from the same article:

Such theories are eagerly consumed by an ever larger audience, even of non-Christians, and quickly lead to bestselling books, a tribute to the gullibility of people despite over a hundred years of public education. According to Schmidt, Thiede has no credentials, has never held an academic post, is self-appointed, and has no credibility in scholarly circles, who dismiss his claims as groundless. Buyers of his books should demand their money back on the grounds that they were defrauded into buying fiction.

Again this whole article is located at this link: (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/210Thiede.html)

I (Abdul-Rahman) recommend that any interested person should purchase the great book called Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus and the Gospels by Graham Stanton a renowned Christian scholar.  Mr. Stanton is a believing Christian and one of the most important scholarly figures in Christendom.  Mr. Stanton irrefutably rejects the unscholarly work of the fraud Carsten Peter Thiede.  Graham Stanton destroys Thiede's false claims and Stanton proofs without doubt the "Magdalen Papyrus" (a.k.a. "Huleatt Manuscript" and the "Jesus Papyrus") must be dated at circa 200 C.E. 

 

The link to see and purchase this book on Amazon.com is here: http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Truth-Light-Jesus-Gospels/dp/1563381370/sr=1-2/qid=1161757466/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-2696728-9783219?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

 

 

Finally let us finish by reading the following from: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/P64.html

Name

Papyrus 64 (Mag Gr. 18), P⁶⁴, Papyrus 67 (P.Barc. 1), P⁶⁷, and Papyrus 4 (#Gr. 1120), P⁴, believed to be coming from the same codex.

Date

c. 200 CE.

Provenance

P⁴ : Coptos (modern name Qift), Egypt, on the east bank of the Nile, by Vincent Scheil during his expedition to Upper Egypt in 1880.

P⁶⁴ : Puchased by Charles B. Huleatt in Luxor in 1901 and given to Magdalen College Library, Oxford University.

P⁶⁷ : First published by Ramón Roca-Puig.

Size

P⁴ : 13.5 cm. x 17 cm. There are two columns and 36 lines per page.

P⁶⁴ : Three fragments of sizes (a) 4.1 cm x 1.2 cm., (b) 1.6 cm. x 1.6 cm., and (c) 4.1 cm. x 1.3 cm. There are two columns and 35-36 lines per page. Image can be seen here.

P⁶⁷ : 10 [+3] cm. x 15 cm. There are two columns and 36-38 lines per page.

Contents

P⁴ : Luke 1:58-59; 1:62-2:1, 6-7; 3:8-4:2, 29-32, 34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16.

P⁶⁴ : Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33.

P⁶⁷ : Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-28.

Textual Character

P⁴ : It concurs with B against more often than the reverse. The Alands call this text as "normal" and Metzger, "proto-Alexandrian." Accompanying P⁴ is one fragment that reads "Gospel according to Matthew" perhaps written by a later scribe at a later date.

P⁶⁴ : The Alands call this text as "strict." Colin Roberts notes the "Alexandrian" character of the text.

P⁶⁷ : The Alands call this text as "strict." Ramón Roca-Puig demonstrated this manuscript's close affinity with .

Writing

The hand is strong and firm perhaps written by a professional scribe.

Location

P⁴ : Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, France.

P⁶⁴ : Magdalen College Library, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom.

P⁶⁷ : Fundación San Lucas Evangelista, Barcelona, Spain.

 

 

So in conclusion whatever we call it "Papyrus 64", "The Magdalen Papyrus", the "Jesus Papyrus", or the "Huleatt manuscript", it is the exact same thing. 

 

It is called "Papyrus #64" because all Papyrus have a number 1-118 for the Bible papyri.  It is also called the "Magdalen Papyrus" since it's located at the Magdalen College Library in Oxford, England.  Thirdly, it is called the "Jesus Papyrus" by ignorant Pagan Trinitarian Christians because they believe the fraud pseudo-scholar Carsten Peter Thiede.  Fourthly, it is also called the "Huleatt Manuscript" since it's was purchased by Rev. Charles B. Huleatt in Luxor, Egypt in 1901 C.E.

 

Let us conclude with a list of all 118 biblical Papyri and their dates in C.E.

From: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/paplist.html

Again all dates are from C.E. NOT B.C.E.

 

The following is a complete list of New Testament papyri so far available. Since we have restricted ourselves to the manuscripts from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth, no data is presented for the manuscripts dated later than the fourth century. Interested reader is requested to go through the references to learn about manuscripts dated later than the beginning of the 4th century CE.