the same mss spanning 8 centuries?

[Kristin]

I am afraid I have another CNTTS question.

 

Concerning Mt 12:23 there is a lacunae for P64–67. The CNTTS explains that a dash means "A few papyri were originally catalogued separately, but they are now widely recognized as different pages from the same manuscript." Being the SAME manuscript needs to be in the same cent, but P64 is from the 2nd cent and P67 from the 10th cent. So how can 8 centuries apart possibly be considered the same mss?

 

Thank you for any clarity anyone is able to provide.

 

Sincerely,

Kristin

[ScottDF]

Or, they may not be from different centuries. See https://www.magd.ox.ac.uk/libraries-and-archives/illuminating-magdalen/news/magdalen-papyrus/ 

[Kristin]

So let's see... they start being dated to the 10th cent, then someone comes along and dates it to the 4th, then someone else comes along and dates it to the 2nd/3rd, then someone else dates it to the late 2nd. So in other words, we don't have a clue when these texts were written.

[ScottDF]

Or, that the clues increase over time and our confidence in the dating is based on more and better clues. I freely admit that in this case I don't personally know (better, I have no idea at all), but as far as this type of thing goes, as time goes on accuracy and precision generally increase. 

[Kristin]

I hope you are correct. It is a concerning thought that a mss dated to the 2nd cent might actually be from the 10th.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I had a look at Aland and Aland's The Text of the New Testament and they just note P64+P67 with no more discussion and date is record and 2nd/3rd. Porter mentions P4 but apparently that is no longer considered part of the same document, as I think @ScottDF 's link above notes.

 

I'm no papryiologist but it's a complex business arriving at any date. Scholars publish papers trying to arrive at a dating for a work. At this point at least 64 67 seem to be settled.

 

What puzzles me a bit is why the date discrepancy wasn't "corrected" in CNTTS when the db was prepared, given that the association was known and thought solid.

 

Thx

D

[Kristin]

@ScottDF and @Λύχνις Δαν,

 

I think I figured it out, and I think I need to report a correction to Accordance...

 

At Mt 9:27 it lists P64-67. If you hover over P64 it says, "late 2nd c, fragmentary papyrus ms. of Matthew" which is correct.

 

Then if you hover over the 67 it says, "10th c., a reinked Gospel ms., located in the Oxford Bodleian Library".

 

However, that is linking to "Minuscule 67" NOT "Papyrus 67".

 

If you go look at P67 it says, "late 2nd c, fragmentary papyrus ms. of Matthew,... most likely from the same ms. as P64, classified as a strict text, Aland category I text".

 

So the P64-67 should be linking to P64-P67. and not P64-M67.

This is a problem with all instances of P64-67.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Nice one - well spotted.

 

Thx

D