Papyrus Facsimiles from Manuscript Shop

I recently received a gift from Wes Huff of three facsimile papyrus manuscripts from the Manuscript Shop. I have been so impressed by the quality and attention to detail that I wanted to share some of the features of these museum quality replicas. The three manuscripts are P75, P52, and P46.

P75
The facsimile of the Pap.Hanna.1 (Mater.Verbi) papyrus, formerly known as Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (also known as P75) is an excellent representation of the original. Comparing the overall shape of the replica with the online images provided by the Vatican Library (page 2A.8r) reveals how exactly the outline was matched with the original fragment, even the worn through-holes and edges of the original are recreated. On page 2A.8r are preserved the titles of both the Gospel of Luke and of John. Zooming into the titles on the facsimile and on the online images reveals an exact match of the letter shapes and the darkness of the ink represented in the ink of the original letters, however, the replica reveals what appears to be some bleeding of the title letters (see image below). 

P75 Facsimile on stand

The stand has a very nice inscription that includes the reference of the biblical text preserved on each side

P52
The famous Rylands Papyrus 457, more widely known as P52, is housed in the John Rylands library at the University of Manchester in the UK. This facsimile is quite striking and it is difficult to tell the difference between the original and the replica. The letters in the P52 facsimile are more exact than the P75 replica and do not have the "bleeding" effect. Even with my poor quality photograph, when the original P52 and the facsimile are seen side by side, the likeness of the two pieces is quite striking. The P52 copy is unique in that the description and content of the fragment is etched directly on the plexiglass plate covering the papyrus rather than on the stand as with the P75 and P46 stands (though the online version for sale doesn't have the plexiglass etched).

P46
The last facsimile is an excellent copy of a page from P46 that is owned by the University of Michigan where it is assigned the shelf number P.Mich inv. 6238 (both the recto and the verso). The lettering on this replica is very sharp allowing the small details of the interlinear correction on the recto, third line from the top, to show clearly. There is very little "bleeding" in the lettering and the worn holes in the papyrus are mimicked quite well, though, as the comparison image shows, the holes in the replica are slightly larger than in the original. 

Closeup of the etching on the stand for P46

All three replicas with their accompanying cloth protective pouches.

Despite the minor details that I mentioned above (the slightly larger wear holes and the "bleeding" of the letters) these facsimiles are absolutely stunning and the craftsmanship and attention to detail shows at every level and thus, they seem to be priced very low for their level of quality (consider the hefty price tag of these comparative quality papyrus facsimiles). It would take someone very familiar with the originals to be able to tell that they were reproductions. I would guess that if these facsimiles were placed beside their original counterparts, it would be difficult to discern which was the replica and which the original. At the very least, they are museum quality and would be very useful as classroom aids in learning palaeography, textual criticism, or learning to read Greek. Besides these useful applications, these pieces are excellent additions to any collection for display, whether a seminary, university, home, or office library.

Nomina Sacra and Assigning dates to Early Christian Papyri

Closeup detail of P75 showing the "staurogram" at Luke 14:27
(https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Hanna.1(Mater.Verbi) Image 1B.10r)

An article by Peter Rodgers was recently published postulating that the number and presence of words abbreviated as nomina sacra can be used as a rough marker for assigning a date to a particular manuscript.

Peter Rodgers, 'Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 4 Reconsidered," Filología neotestamentaria 38, no. 58 (2025): 77-88.

In this article Rodgers is responding to the argument laid out in the following article.. 

Brent Nongbri "Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 2 (2016): 405-437.

In this piece, Nongbri argues that Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (P75) should be dated into the fourth century (ca. 350 CE) rather than in the first half of the third century (see previous post here). Nongbri uses the similarity in script used in P75 with similar scripts used in other securely dated fourth-century manuscripts to widen the possible dates of P75 into the fourth century. He then argues that the fourth century is a more likely date for the copying of P75 because of its close textual affinity to the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus.

In response to Nongbri's claims, Rodgers brings in the second-century P4 as supporting evidence for an early second-century stream of text found in P75 and Vaticanus. However, because Nongbri has also questioned the traditional second-century date for P4 as well, Rodgers looks to details other than handwriting to shine light on the dates of these two papyri (Nongbri, God's Library, 247-68). Rodgers does this by looking at the number of words abbreviated as nomia sacra in each papyrus. There are fifteen total words that have been abbreviated as nomia sacra in the most developed systems in the later manuscripts. In P4 "[o]nly God, Jesus, Lord, Christ and Spirit are abbreviated" (Rodgers, 84). In P75, there are eleven words that have been abbreviated as nomina sacra. Rodgers concluded,

"If we consider the use of the first four or five as earlier, and the addition of others as of a later date, we may surmise that, other things being equal, P4 is of a decidedly earlier date than P75. It is therefore reasonable to consider P4 to be from the late second century, and P75 to date from some time in the third or fourth century" (Rodgers, 84).

Because the tau-rho ligature, the staurogram, is used in P75, this adds an additional layer of complexity to the dating issue (see image above). Rodger notes that because the device is used within the context of the gospel narrative and is not used as a stand alone symbol, its use fits more comfortably in the third century rather than the fourth (Rodgers, 86).

I agree with Rodgers that the presence of the staurogram fits better in the third century, and that it may have been used as early as the late second century. For example, in an earlier post, I highlight the presence of the IH nomen sacrum for Jesus's name in the Latin text of the Frankfurt Amulet. It is interesting that there is a cross shape that is formed as the lengthened iota of the nomen sacrum intersects with the interlinear superscript to form a cross shape. This appears to be deliberate, and considering these nomina sacra in the amulet are Greek in a Latin text, it points to a much earlier adoption of these symbols in older Greek manuscripts. Considering the date (230-260 or 270 CE) of the context the amulet was found in, it means that cruciform imagery was used in nomina sacra at least by the begining of the third century, or even the late second century (if the burial where the amulet was found can be dated to 230 CE). (See also this earlier post discussing the staurogram and the Epistle of Barnabas)

Rodgers notes the presence of the staurogram at Revelation 11:8 in Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, its lack of use in the Gospel accounts in Sinaiticus means that its presence in Revelation 11:8 is most likely due to it being carried over from the exemplar (as Rodgers indicates on page 85). 

Though I do think that the details of Rodgers's arguments could be fleshed out in greater and more convincing detail, this article is a step in the right direction. Though I seriously doubt it will move the needle much in the debates surrounding the dates of these papyri.

______________________________________
Bibliography

Nongbri, Brent, God’s Library (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).

_______________, "Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament" Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 2 (2016): 405-437

Rodgers, Peter, 'Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 4 Reconsidered," Filología neotestamentaria 38, no. 58 (2025): 77-88.

Tertullian, the Alexamenos Graffito, and P66

Approximately 1800 years ago someone (a child or teenager) scrawled (in Greek) an insult into the plaster walls of Emperor Caligula's former palace, "Alexamenos worships [his] god'' along with a crudely drawn image of a figure raising their hand in worship to a crucified figure with a donkey's head. This particular section of Caligula's palace was later used as a training school for court servants who had graduated from the Paedagogium ad caput Africae (School at the head of Africa), "from the name of a street which led from the Coliseum to the aristocratic quarter of the Coelia" (Lanciani, Ancient Rome, 122). There are many inscriptions that testify to this time period. One inscription reads, Corinthus exit de paedagogio (Corinthus exits the School). The most famous inscription is the insult to Alexamenos, also known as the Alexamenos Graffitto. The crudely drawn image has the Greek phrase "Ἀλεξάμενος σέβετε θεόν," with σέβετε being a phonetic misspelling of σέβεται, the ε and the diphthong αι were pronounced the same at this time (MacLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, 208).

Sketch of the Alexamenos graffito (Garrucci, Il crocifisso graffito, 5)

There have been a variety of dates given for this inscription with proposals ranging as early as 85 CE, but with the standard date given as the third century. Hans Schwarz, Christology, argues that the Alexamenos gaffito dates to 85AD (pg. 207) whereas Raffaele Garrucci, Il crocifisso graffito, argues that the graffito should be dated to the early third century (pg. 13). Peter Keegan notes that 

"[u]sing relative and internal criteria to determine various relationships between the building and the graffiti, it is possible to say that, in relative terms, the graffiti in room 6 are Trajanic, Hadrianic, or possibly Antonine (CE 98-138 or 192), while those in rooms 7 and 8 date to the second and third centuries AD. Applying internal criteria case by case allows a few graffiti to be traced specifically to the time of Septimius Severus and the Severan period." (Keegan, "Reading the ‘Pages’ of the Domus Caesaris," 72)

Image of Alexamenos graffito (Lanciani, Ancient Rome, 123)

 

The uncertainty expressed concerting the dating of the graffito has probably been leveraged too far in the case of P.Bodmer II (P66). Brent Nongbri argued that P66 was likely copied in the 4th century rather than the early 3rd-century as it has often been presented (Nongbri, "The Limits," 34-35). One piece of evidence that Nongbri points to as supporting a 4th century date is the presence of the tau-rho ligature known as the "staurogram" (see earlier post). I have already addressed some of the problems with these conclusions in an earlier post, as further support for dating the use of cruciform imagery into the 4th century, Nongbri mentioned the Alexamenos graffito (Nongbri, "The Limits," 33-34, footnote 84). He notes the certainty of the terminus post quem yet states that the 3rd century dating "was largely based upon the editor's opinion of when such a polemical graffito would have been appropriate" (Nongbri, "The Limits," 33-34, footnote 84). The editor Nongbri was citing was Raffaele Garrucci. Unfortunately, Nongbri never engages with the content of Garrucci's arguments but rather disregards it as mere editorial opinion. Garrucci actually cites several ancient sources that do in fact make a date of the early third century a more plausible date for the graffito. Lets turn to some of the evidence below.

Tertullian 

Tertullian wrote his Apology in the year 197-198 CE (Glover, "Introduction," xix). In it he quotes a common myth, perpetuated by the Roman historian Tacitus (Tertullian quotes from book five of his Annals), that Jews worshiped the head of an ass.

"For, like some others, you are under the delusion that our god is an ass's head. Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds. In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation; and theorizing at his pleasure about the origin, as well as the name and the religion of the Jews, he states that having been delivered, or rather, in his opinion, expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia, where water is so scanty, they were in extremity from thirst; but taking the guidance of the wild asses, which it was thought might be seeking water after feeding, they discovered a fountain, and thereupon in their gratitude they consecrated a head of this species of animal. And as Christianity is nearly allied to Judaism, from this, I suppose, it was taken for granted that we too are devoted to the worship of the same image." (Tertullian, Apol. 16)

Tertullian continued with the same theme of Christians being accused of worshiping an ass's head later in the same chapter.

"But lately a new edition of our god has been given to the world in that great city: it originated with a certain vile man who was wont to hire himself out to cheat the wild beasts, and who exhibited a picture with this inscription: The God of the Christians, born of an ass. He had the ears of an ass, was hoofed in one foot, carried a book, and wore a toga. Both the name and the figure gave us amusement. But our opponents ought straightway to have done homage to this biformed divinity, for they have acknowledged gods dog-headed and lion-headed, with horn of buck and ram, with goat-like loins, with serpent legs, with wings sprouting from back or foot. These things we have discussed ex abundanti, that we might not seem willingly to pass by any rumor against us unrefuted." (Tertullian, Apol. 16)

This myth was so widespread that Tertullian, living in Carthage North Africa, was able to speak of the popularity of this myth in Rome.

 

Minucius Felix 

Writing about the same time as Tertullian, Minucius Felix, living in Rome, wrote about a similar myth that the Romans believed concerning the Christians supposedly worshiping the head of an ass.

"I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion." (Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9)

Celsus

Origen, writing in the mid 3rd century, quotes from Celsus, the pagan philosopher who wrote a polemic against Christians around the year 180 CE (Hoffmann, Celsus, On the true Doctrine, 32). Celsus's work was called, On the True Doctrine, and he mentions the following myth concerning Jews and Christians.

"For the sake of such a monstrous delusion, and in support of those wonderful advisers, and those wonderful words which you address to the lion, to the amphibious creature, to the creature in the form of an ass, and to others, for the sake of those divine doorkeepers whose names you commit to memory with such pains, in such a cause as this you suffer cruel tortures, and perish at the stake." (Origen, Contra Celsum, 7.40)

Celsus notes that Christians are willing to die as martyrs for their beliefs and associates the image of an ass with Christian devotion.

Conclusions

The literary evidence from the first through the third centuries is extensive; the Romans believed that Christians worshiped the head of an ass. It seems very fitting then that a slave in the imperial entourage would be a Christian (see Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96, who describes Christian slaves as the object of his interrogation). It also seems highly plausible that one of the many other slaves would taunt this Christian with images of a donkey-headed Jesus on a cross sometime in the late second century when Celsus was writing and when Tertullian was writing about these myths. This negative depiction of Christian veneration of Jesus on the cross fits well within a late second through early third century context. This means that the use of the "staurogram" as a visual representation of Jesus on the cross in P.Bodmer II (P66) fits well within the period of it's early third century dating.

The Staurogram in P.Bodmer II (P66) 

(https://bodmerlab.unige.ch/fr/constellations/papyri/mirador/1072205287?page=140)

________________________________

Bibliography

 

Garrucci, Raffaele, Il crocifisso graffito in casa dei cesari ed il simbolismo cristiano in una corniola del secondo secolo (COI TIPI DELLA CIVILTÀ CATTOLICA, 1857)
(https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_kE9SZ86woNQC/page/n1/mode/2up)

Glover, T. R., trans. Tertullian, Apology and De Spectaculis, Gerald H. Rendall, trans. Minucius Felix, Octavius (LOEB, Harvard University Press, 1931)

Hoffmann, R. Joseph , tans. Celsus, On the true doctrine: a discourse against the Christians (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). 

Keegan, Peter, “Reading the ‘Pages’ of the Domus Caesaris: Pueri Delicati, Slave Education, and the Graffiti of the Palatine Paedagogium,” in Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture, edited by Michelle George (University of Toronto Press, 2013); 69–98

Lanciani, Rodolfo, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (Cambridge, MA: Houghton and Mifflin, 1888) (https://archive.org/details/ancientromeinlig00lancuoft/page/121/mode/1up)
 

MacLean, B.H., An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (University of Michigan Press, 2002).
(https://books.google.com/books?id=x2AD3M77TgMC&pg=RA1-PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Nongbri, Brent “The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66),” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 1-35.

Schwarz, Hans, Christology (Eerdmans, 1998).

Wes Huff, Joe Rogan, P. Ryl. 3.457 (P52) and the Gospel of John

Joe Rogan Holding up a facsimile of P52 that Huff made and presented to Rogan.

Christian Apologist and New Testament Scholar Wes Huff of Apologetics Canada appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. The interview has gone viral within the New Testament Textual Criticism communities in the online sphere particularly because of Huff's statements around the John Ryland papyrus known as P52 (shelf number P.Ryl. III 457).

It seems that everyone has wanted to jump into the discussion surrounding this fragment, including Brent Nongbri, professor of History of Religions at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion, and Society in Oslo. Over on his excellent blog Variant Readings, he listed several points of critique concerning P52 that Huff discussed on the Joe Rogan Experience. Nongbri has published extensively on the uncertainties of assigning dates to manuscripts using other non-dated papyri, especially with regard to P52. Despite Nongbri's obvious expertise I was a bit surprised by some of his criticisms of Huff's comments.

First was Huff's statements about the Christian use of the Codex. I had to re-watch that portion of the interview to be certain of the wording. When I first watched the interview I was in complete agreement with what Huff said, that Christians used the Codex exclusively with regard to their scriptures, which is absolutely true.Yet Nongbri seems to think Huff was arguing that ONLY Christians used the codex.

"The codex is “almost exclusively a Christian convention”: False. We have many codices that contain non-Christian material."

I don't think that this was what Huff was trying to convey when he was recounting the story to Rogan. Following are Huff's words in their full context.

"C. H. Roberts is, you know, literally going through these piles of manuscripts in these drawers that are being, like, stashed away and he finds this guy [P52], and he sees that it's written on both sides, which is almost exclusively a Christian convention. Because in the ancient world, they used scrolls. And the Christians, for reasons we're not entirely clear on, they start to make codices, books. Mhmm. And so, they write on both sides and so he says, okay this is written on both sides it's probably a Christian manuscript." (This at the 01:57:31-01:57:54 mark of the YouTube interview)

Nongbri's criticism appears to be taking issue with something that Huff never meant to say. It is most certainly true that Christians exclusively used the codex for their sacred writings, and this is likely what Huff was referring to and not that Christians invented the codex or that secular writings never appeared in the codex format. This becomes clear when his statements are taken in full context. In my hearing, Huff was highlighting the importance given in the discovery and publication by Roberts of the fact that P52 was the earliest known copy of a New Testament writing and it was a codex. In the description of the P52 in the Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Vol. III Theological and Literary Texts, it is in the preparation of this volume that Roberts "discovered" the Ryland's fragment, he notes that, 

"The fragment is part of a leaf of a papyrus codex and thus conforms to the almost universal rule that works of Christian literature were written in the codex form" ("Catalogue," pg. 1).

Along with this, in the editio princeps of P52, Roberts had this to say.

"The fact that it is part of a codex, not of a roll, need now cause no surprise; thanks to recent discoveries we are coming to regard the codex as the normal vehicle for Christian literature even in the second century." ("An unpublished fragment," pg. 12)

The fact that the fragment was so early (at least according to the dating conventions of the day) and that it was a codex played a part in the excitement surrounding it's discovery and publication and Huff was right to point this out.

In this info graphic Wes Huff gives details concerning the Christian use of the Codex. Note that Huff acknowledges that Christians did NOT invent the Codex and that Christian papyri only amounts to 20-40% of codices.

Second, Nongbri called attention to Huff's statement that the Ryland's fragment likely originated from Oxyryhnchus Egypt. Nongbri wrote.

"Most likely comes from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.” Misleading. We don’t really know where this piece came from because it was bought on the antiquities market and not scientifically excavated. It’s possible that it comes from Oxyrhynchus, but Grenfell was buying from dealers elsewhere in Egypt in addition to the area of Oxyrhynchus."

The pushback by Nogbri about Huff's statement concerning provenance is hardly warranted. Roberts stated this about the fragment.

"Unfortunately, the provenance of the papyrus cannot be exactly determined. It was one of a large number purchased for the Library by the late B. P. Grenfell in 1920; the group to which it belongs consists of some literary texts and documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, all of which are stated to have come either from the Fayum or from Oxyrhynchos." ("An unpublished fragment," pg. 24).

Not only does Roberts believe P52 originated in the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Nongbri himself stated that either of these locations were it's likely provenance. In his article, 'The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," Nongbri wrote in response to Roberts statements quoted above,

"Even absent that statement of provenance, we would be on safe ground assuming one of those two locales simply given the relative numbers of papyri discovered at those locations." ("The Use and Abuse of P52," pg. 27 footnote 14)

Therefore, if both Roberts in the editio princeps and Nongbri himself confirms that P52 is likely from Oxyrhynchus or from the Fayum, then Huff's statement was not misleading, it was on point.

Thirdly, with regard to the dating of P52 and the composition of John's Gospel, Nongbri has long taken issue with arguments like the one mentioned by Huff. It is worth quoting both Huff's comments, and Nongbri's reply together.

""But the unanimous consensus is that it’s comfortably second century, potentially beginning of the second century, which means that, this is found in Egypt; John is probably writing his gospel in Ephesus. So it has to be written by John, spread around, find its way to Egypt, copied and then end up in this manuscript, which means at minimum, you’ve already pushed the Gospel of John back into the first century, comfortably.” Very much debatable. This is the same story that was being told pretty much from the time of the publication of P52 in 1935. In older versions, the date of the papyrus was usually given as “circa 125 AD,” but here the rhetoric is a bit more slippery: “comfortably second century, potentially beginning of the second century.” But for the logic to work, that “potentially beginning of the second century” has to become “definitely beginning of the second century.” But the dating of P52 is not at all certain; it is just based on handwriting analysis, and there are good parallels for the script of P52 in papyri from the late second century and even the third century (see my 2020 New Testament Studies piece)"

A few things that should be noted here, one is the date range given by Nongbri. It is certainly true that this type of hand used by the scribe of the Rylands fragment has comparable examples into the third century. No one is disputing this. It is also true that, as Nongbri notes himself, these date ranges do not mean that P52 definitely dates to the early third century either. I really do think that Nongbri overstates his case somewhat. The fact that so many copies of John have survived, even if they all do date to the early third century, does say something about when the Gospel of John was composed. It at least speaks to the popularity and frequent copying of the text which reflects positively on its reception. It is certainly possible that P52, or even P.Bodmer II were copied in the second century. All Huff would need to do is change a few words of his comments and Nongbri's criticism would completely miss the mark.

"But the unanimous consensus is that it’s comfortably second [to early third] century, potentially beginning of the second century, which means that, this is found in Egypt; John is probably writing his gospel in Ephesus. So it has to be written by John, spread around, find its way to Egypt, copied and then end up in this manuscript, which means at minimum, you’ve already pushed the Gospel of John back into the first century, comfortably. [If the fragment dates to the early second century.]”

If these few minor changes were made and stated, then nothing that Huff claimed would have fallen within the realm of Nongbri's technical criticism. Along with this, Huff's comments were made in the context of the fragment's discovery. And with regard to the initial impact of the publication of the editio princeps, it certainly did have this affect on the consensus surrounding the date of composition for the Gospel of John.

Joe Rogan Experience #2252. Click Image for Link to YouTube Video

_______________________________________

Brent Nongbri, "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," Harvard Theological Review, 2005; Vol. 98, p. 23-52.

Brent Nongbri, “Palaeography, Precision and Publicity: Further Thoughts on P.Ryl.Iii.457 (P52),” New Testament Studies 66, no. 4 (2020): 471–99.

C. H. Roberts, Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Vol. III Theological and Literary Texts (Nos. 457-551), Manchester: Sherratt and Hughes, 1938.

C.H. Roberts, "An unpublished fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1936; Vol. 20 (1), p. 45-55.

Book Review: The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity by Benjamin Laird

The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity: Its Formation, Publication, and Circulation. By Benjamin P. Laird. Peabody: Hendrickson Academic, 2022, xx + 371 pp., $59.99 hardback.

Investigations into the theology of the Pauline corpus abound, yet few studies have examined the historical circumstances that gave rise to the Pauline corpus as a letter collection. The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity is a fresh in-depth analysis of the historical evidence, both physical and literary, into the development of the Pauline letter collection. Benjamin P. Laird (PhD University of Aberdeen) is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

This book is an expanded and revised version of Laird's doctoral thesis. It is composed of an introduction, six chapters, and three appendices.

The introduction begins by highlighting the fact that Paul preferred personal interaction to letter writing, yet Paul is known today through his extant letters (pp. 1-3). Paul's epistles were likely the earliest Christian writings to be valued, circulated and collected (p. 3). After a summary of the contents (pp. 4-9), Laird concludes by discussing the challenges to this study (pp. 10-11) and the wider implications that this volume might have on Pauline scholarship (pp. 11-15).

Chapter 1 examines first century letter writing practices in the Greco-Roman world (pp. 19-31). This chapter advances the notion put forward by several recent studies that Paul worked with secretaries in the writing of his letters (pp. 31-34). Along with this, these secretaries made duplicate copies for Paul's personal collection or those of his associates (pp. 34-39). It is likely that these personal collections were the source from which an early edition of the Pauline corpus was produced.

Chapter 2 looks into the extant Greek textual witnesses (pp. 40-64) and ancient translations relating to the earliest state of the Pauline collection (pp. 89-101). As a corollary to the discussion, the advent of the codex book form and its rapid adoption within Christian communities (pp. 64-73), and the origin and use of the letter titles are examined (pp. 73-89). Along with this, early testimony from historical figures such as Marcion, Origen, Eusebius, Athenasius, the Muratorion Fragment, and Church councils are taken into account (pp. 101-112).

Chapter 3 delves into a diversity of writings written from the late-first through to the early-fifth centuries. The familiarity these authors had with the various Pauline epistles is ascertained and weighed (pp. 123-189). References from 1 Thess 5:27, Col 4:16, and 2 Peter 3:15-16 are analyzed for the light they might shed on the development of the Pauline canon (pp. 113-123). Most of the chapter is given up to culling through Patristic references to the Pauline writings (pp. 123-189).

Chapter 4 investigates the external evidence for the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews. Laird wrestles with the various scholarly challenges to the authenticity of Hebrews (pp. 202-232) and the Pastorals (p. 190-202) and their canonical relationship to the undisputed letters. According to Laird, the Pastorals and Hebrews have a more tumultuous reception history when compared with the rest of the Pauline corpus. Larid proposes that "the text of Hebrews was a Pauline speech that was later produced as a literary document" (p. 233).

Chapter 5 surveys and evaluates the many influential scholarly theories that attempt to account for the initial development and acceptance of the Pauline canon. These theories are separated into four categories, The first includes those theories that propose a formation of the collection after long years of neglect or limited circulation (pp. 236-241). The second category includes theories that generally postulate that the collection developed gradually as new writings were produced and the writings became more well known (pp. 241-261). The third category contains theories that hold to a gradual development by a Pauline school that may have had a hand in writing pseudepigraphal letters in Paul's name (pp. 261-268). The fourth and final category includes theories that hold to an early development, circulation and collection of Paul's letters (268-278). This collection was initially organized by Paul himself shortly before his death or immediately after his death by his close associates.

Chapter 6 provides an overview of the formation, publication, and circulation of the Pauline letter collection. The chapter identifies the earliest editions of the corpus that circulated and standardized the letter titles and the orientation of the writings with reference to each other within the collection (pp. 280-317). The theory proposed in this chapter takes into account both the external and internal evidence laid out in the previous chapters. The main proposal is this,

"[A]t least three major archetypal editions of the corpus began to circulate as early as the first century or soon thereafter, each of which circulated for several decades until a fourteen-volume edition became widely recognized by the fourth century." (p. 9).

There are a few places where the discussion and evidence do not seem to support some of the conclusions. First is the idea that the letters must have by necessity been bound together in a type of edition for the Pauline epistles to have been recognized and the titles of the epistles to have been standardized. This does not actually accord with the manner in which books were conceptualized in antiquity. In the Greco-Roman world a written piece was often composed of separate and unbound rolls. It was not uncommon for a reader to possess only some of the bookrolls. Nevertheless, these other bookrolls were still conceptually linked in the mind of the reader as a complete work. This can be illustrated with P. Oxy 2192. In this papyrus fragment in a postscript the sender of the letter makes a request. 

"Have a copy made of books six and seven of Hypsicrates’ Men Who Appear in Commedies and send it to me. Harpocration says that Pollio has them among his books, and probably others may have them too. And he also has prose epitomes of Thersagorus’s Myths of Tragedy.” 

Here the writer of the postscript conceptually links all the books (i.e. separate bookrolls) of Hypsicrates’ Men Who Appear in Commedies even though they are not physically bound together with his own copies of books one through five (assuming he possessed them already). Another example are the titles to the canonical gospels. P.Bodmer II (P66) is a codex that only contains the Gospel of John and has ευαγγελιον κατα ιωαννην written at the top. This title conceptually links this gospel with the other three even though it is not physically bound together with the other three in a single codex. 

Further still, the titles themselves could have been standardized by use and convention organically through circulation without having to have been derived from a single official edition with the letters physically bound together. The titles could have been derived from the addressees written on the backs of the letters (see previous post). The titles might have derived from the letter carrier as directed by Paul himself, perhaps when it was read out before the congregation. In either case, none of this necessitates that the letters be physically bound within a single codex or edition for them to be conceptually linked by the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Just as the writer of the postscript in P.Oxy 2192 conceptually links all the separate bookrolls of Hypsicrate's woks, Peter could have conceptually linked all of the extant letters of Paul that were not physically bound together. These factors seem to nullify the need for postulating various bound editions with seven, ten, thirteen, or fourteen letters contained in a single codex. Despite this, Laird is careful to note that an officially published edition of Paul's epistle do not negate the fact that the letters also circulated amongst the various Christian communities for a time (p. 316).

Despite the criticisms noted above, Laird provides an exhaustive look into all the physical and literary evidence for the Pauline letter collection. Though there is disagreement with the necessity for an official edition of the Pauline epistles, it is likely that such an edition did arise. The most compelling argument made in the book is the notion that Hebrews was likely an oral speech by Paul that was taken down and prepared for publication by Luke or another of Paul's associates (pp. 225-234). This appears to take into account all of the available evidence and best explains the early acceptance of Hebrews and its close connection with Paul from an early period. Despite some minor criticisms mentioned above, Laird's monograph is an excellent resource that contains all of the evidence for the circulation of the Pauline canon in a ready handbook.

Timothy N. Mitchell

PhD, University of Birmingham, UK

Review: "Logos and Literacy" by Jordan Peterson

For a limited time, Daily Wire is offering a documentary on the impact of the Christian Bible upon the western world. The documentary is hosted by Jordan Peterson and takes place in the Museum of the Bible in Washington D.C. It can be found at the following link.

https://www.dailywire.com/episode/logos-literacy-feature-film

The documentary run time is only 44 minutes, and because of the relative brevity, it does not delve into much detail. It is divided into nine "Chapters". The following is a list of these chapters with their location in minutes of video .

Chapter 1: Museum of the Bible - 1:28 minutes.

Chapter 2: There Must be Logos - 4:37 minutes.

Chapter 3: The Written Word - 7:21 minutes.

Chapter 4: Teaching the Psalms - 12:59 minutes.

Chapter 5: Music and Memory - 16:20 minutes.

Chapter 6: Mass Production - 19:01 minutes.

Chapter 7: Translation to the Vernacular - 23:50 minutes.

Chapter 8: The Men of Science - 31:39 minutes.

Chapter 9: The Bible's Legacy - 38:53 minutes.

Summary of Content:

Chapter 1 introduces Brian Hyland, the Curator of Medieval Manuscripts at the Museum of the Bible in Washington D.C. He begins by introducing a mural on the fourth floor of the museum. This mural blends the images of the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bodmer Psalms in Greek, a Medieval Psalter, The Gutenberg Bible, and the title of the Old Testament portion from the King James Bible. This serves as a great introduction to the content that will be covered in this documentary.

Chapter 2 discusses the creation narrative in Genesis and the parallels it has with Mesopotamian creation stories. Keith Getty, the songwriter who composed the hymn "In Christ Alone," is introduced and he ties in the Genesis story with the presence of the "Logos" at the beginning of creation in the Gospel of John. Getty states that "beauty and truth are linked together in the creator God. Another commentator, later introduced as Vishal Mangalwadi, Christian Philosopher, interprets the use of the word Logos in John to mean that reason was at the foundation and creation of the world.

Chapter 3 presents the advent of writing by showing some stunning images of Cuneiform tablets. Jordan Peterson discusses the gradual development of writing from keeping accounts to writing down and recording thoughts and stories. Rabbi Moshe Englander, who works at the Museum of the Bible as a Torah scribe, declares that there are 304,805 letters in the Hebrew Torah. Jeff Kloha, Chief Curator at the Museum of the Bible showcases the Bodmer Psalms, a 3rd or 4th century papyrus copy of the Greek Psalms (P.Bodmer XXIV). Hyland, continuing to discuss the Bodmer Psalms, gives a rough description of the codex and their early construction. He connects the Bodmer psalms with the Pachomian Monastery in Egypt and the requirement that all the monks in the monastery must be literate.

Chapter 4 introduces Vishal Mangalwadi who discusses that literacy is wound into the very fabric Jewish religion and culture. He notes that the Jewish people are the model to the western world that the home is the beginning of education. 

Chapter 5 gives the floor to Hyland who introduces images from a Greek Lectionary and highlights the musical notation in the lectionary. Getty declares that "Christianity is a singing religion," that the Psalms have been sung throughout Christian history.

Chapter 6 takes the viewer into the Middle Ages with the mass production of Latin bibles for use in the universities of western Europe. Hyland showcases several that are on display at the Museum of the Bible, utilizing close up camera angles and detailed shots of the colored and decorated initials. Kloha displays the museums copy of the Gutenberg Bible and discusses the role that printing had in expanding literacy and the availability of biblical text to a wider audience. Hyland also displays a bible in the museum's collection that was printed Gutenberg's partners, Johann Fust and Peter Schöffer.

Chapter 7 has Jordan Peterson and Hyland introducing the translation of the biblical text into European vernacular languages. The difficulty of word for word translation is discussed. The work of Martin Luther is highlighted, his goal of making a translation that the common people of Saxony could understand. Several close-up shots of Luther's bible are presented. Mangalwadi proposed that it was Protestant Christianity's emphasis on reading and understanding the bible that brought literacy to everyone. Kloha showcases the museums copy of the King James Bible and states that it "is the most significant translation into English ever." 

Chapter 8 has Jordan Peterson proposing that the medieval universities emerged from the Church and modern science came out of the Christian tradition. Emphasizing this fact, Mangalwadi notes that Psalms 11:2 is written over the entrance of the world's first laboratory at Cambridge University. He argues that the Christian belief in a creator motivated the first scientists to study creation. The work and impact of scientists Galileo, Newton, and Carver are discussed in light of their Christian faith. Mangalwadi proposes that modern science developed after Protestantism spread, and along with it, literacy and an "intellectual revolution."

Chapter 9 begins with Mangalwadi arguing that the modern concept of personal property and capitalism came out of the biblical teaching that each individual is a creator made in the image of God. Kloha and Getty emphasize the impact the bible has had on the arts, literature, the moral law and all aspects of western culture. Jordan Peterson wraps up the documentary by proposing that the bible is an example of the multiplicity of human experience and wisdom told in a collection of stories.

Review:

There are only a few minor criticisms that I have of the documentary overall. First, I wish there had been more close and detailed images and camera angles of the various manuscripts and books that were showcased. Some of the close up, raking light shots of the Gutenberg bible were stunning. More of this with all of the artifacts would have been even better. There were a few times where I wasn't sure if I agreed with the facts presented. For example, when the King James Bible was being featured, it was touted as "the most significant translation into English ever" by Kloha. I would disagree only in degree with this statement. It depends on what one means by significance. I would argue that either Tyndale's translation, or even the Geneva Bible translation might actually be hailed as more important than the King James Bible.

Despite these minor criticisms, I felt like the documentary was a nice 30,000-foot view of the history of the Christian Bible in the Western world. It would make for a nice center piece for a discussion group or study. It also serves as a good introduction to the holdings of the Museum of the bible in D.C. This is helpful to those who have not visited the museum and are on the edge as to whether it is worth a visit.

The following are links to two of the artifacts showcased in the documentary.

P.Bodmer XXIV -P.Bodmer XXIV (Rahlfs 2110) | Museum of the Bible

The partners of Gutenberg; Johann Fust and Peter Schöffer Bible

Biblia Latina; Johann Fust and Peter Schöffer Bible | Museum of the Bible

The Date of P.Bodmer II (P66)

Detail of PSI V 446 (133-137 CE)

P.Bodmer II, also known as P66, is a Greek papyrus codex of the Gospel of John. Because of its age and extent of preservation it has been considered an important early material artifact of Christian book culture. Ever since its publication by Victor Martin in 1956 it has been assigned a date from 150-250 CE and recently by Brent Nongbri (see previous post here and here) into the 4th century as well.

Title of the gospel of John in P.Bodmer II (P66)

Over on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, noted palaeographer Pasquale Orsini wrote a helpful guest post clarifying some issues of palaeography that surfaced during an interchange between Peter Malik and Brent Nongbri (here, here, and here). I also interacted with Orsini in the comments section of the blog who then helpfully responded. My question had to do with the validity of comparing the hand [that is, the style of handwriting] of P.Bodmer II with the 4th century (securely dated) papyri P.Cair.Isid.2 and P.Lond.1920. In the blog post Orsini had agreed with Nongbri's method of comparing these two papyri with that of P.Bodmer II in order to expand that date of P66 into the 4th century. It was my impression, however, that the overall structure and course of the pen strokes in forming some of the letters (alph [α], mu [μ], delta [δ], for example) between all three papyri were different enough for me to question this comparison. Orsini helpfully responded by stating,

"In a "stylistic class" the differences in structure of some letters are common, because the graphic phenomenon has not been "normalized" according to a scheme (as it happens in a "canon" or "normative majuscule"). The differences observed by you are part of this variability of a "stylistic class". The elements of the style (for example round shapes with loops, oblique and horizontal strokes prolonged, some letters written in a single sequence) prevail over the structure of the individual letters."

Detail of P.Cair.Isid. 2 (298 CE)

The "stylistic class" Orsini is referring to is the "Alexandrian stylistic class" of scripts. This type of hand came into use sometime during the second century, a typical early example being PSI V 446 (Cavallo, 129). This can be securely dated to 133-137 because it is an edict of the prefect Marcus Petronius (Orsini and Clarysse, 458). Both P.Cair.Isid.2 and P.Lond.1920 are considered as belonging to the "Alexandrian stylistic class." P.Bodmer XX on the other hand (another papyri Nongbri used in his re-dating of P66) is considered as belonging another style of script and thus is not a suitable comparison to P.Bodmer II (i.e. apples and oranges).

To the casual observer, the variations between the letters may seem slight and petty. For example, if one considers the differences between their own unique signature and the hand writing of someone else writing the same name, the variations are slight and are often subconsciously implemented by the writer. The same is most likely true of the scribe who copied P.Bodmer II. The style of script used has a lot to do with the manner in which a scribe was trained to write (On this, see, Cribiore, 114-116). By examining securely dated papyri that use a specific style of writing one can determine a general time period the script was in use. In this case, using PSI V 446 as the rough starting point and P.Lond. 1920 at the extreme end, the "Alexandrian stylistic class" was in use around 200 years. If these comparisons are fully valid, then one can set a rough date for P.Bodmer II at somewhere around 150-350 CE. This does not mean that P.Bodmer II is an exact match with each papyri only that this style of writing was in use for roughly this time length.

In order to better illustrate these slight differences in script between these four papyri (PSI V 446, P.Bodmer II, P.Lond. 1920, P.Bodmer XX, and P.Cair. Isid. 2), I laid out images of the letters of each of the papyri side by side for ease of comparison. Pay particular attention to the alpha, delta, kappa, mu, and phi. The differences in ductus and shading are slight but noticeable. I will not argue here for a specific date for P.Bodmer II, but it is obvious when comparing the letters below that P.Bodmer XX is not the same style as the rest of the papyri. 

_______________________________

Bibliography

Cavallo, Guglielmo. "Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri." Pages 101-148 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Cribiore, Rafaella "Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt" (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1996).

Nongbri, Brent. "The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66)" Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 1–35.

Orsini, Pasquale. "I Papiri Bodmer: scritture e libri." Adamantius 21 (2015): 60-78.

Orsini, Pasquale and Willy Clarysse, “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88 (2012): 443-74.