OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

2

Indicators of ‘Catholicity’ in Early Gospel Manuscripts

Scott Charlesworth

THE TWO INDICATORS

The remarkable Christian preference for the codex has often been noted.1 All of the ‘early’ (i.e. dated up to the third/fourth century) manuscripts of the canonical gospels discovered to date come from papyrus codices with the exception of one roll (P22) and one parchmentcopy codex (0171). Of more significance is the recent discovery that Christians produced early canonical gospels in standard-sized codices.2 In the second and second/third centuries the preferred size for gospel codices approximated the small Turner Group 9.1 format (W11.5–14 cm H at least 3 cm higher than W), while in the third century a size approximating the taller but still portable 8.2 Group format (W12–14 cm H not quite twice W) predominated (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2 below).3 This finding is remarkable given that other early Christian codices were not produced in these formats.4 While the codex was the preferred

1 C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (Schweich Lectures, 1977; London: OUP, 1979); C. H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London: OUP for the British Academy, 1985), 19–23; L. W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,Review 2006), 43–61, esp. 57–60, has updated the figures of Roberts and Skeat for Christian and non-Christian use of the roll and codex. 2 See S. D. Charlesworth, ‘Public and Private: Second- and Third-Century Gospel Manu- scripts’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias, eds., Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2009), 148–75. 3 All of the 2nd- and 2nd/3rd-cent. codices including P108 are of similar size. The 9.1 subgroup is slightly taller than the ‘square’ Group 9, while ‘Group 10 is only a special case in a slightly smaller format of Group 9’ (E. G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1977), 25). Likewise, there is little difference between subgroup 8.2 and Group 8 codices (ibid. 20–2). 4 Examination of the other early Christian codices in Turner’s Typology reveals that none of the small number of 2nd/3rd-cent. Christian MSS (OT 36, OT 7, OT 9) have the same format as OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

38 Scott Charlesworth vehicle for Christian texts in general, gospels seem to have been regarded as a special category. Early Christians acknowledged their importance by using standard-sized codices. Early Christian use of the unique convention known as nomina sacra is also well-known.5 Roberts6 argued that there was early consensus about conven- tional treatment of the four nomina divina (¨#, Å#F#, æØ##, ˚æØ#) which was then extended to other words.7 He explained inconsistency in applying contraction by scribal difficulty in ascertaining whether the referent, meaning, or context was sacred or mundane.8 This was certainly a factor in the very earliest period, but there is a better explanation for apparent inconsist- ency in the period covered by our manuscripts. It was decided in the second century that the words causing the interpretative difficulties should be sys- tematically contracted regardless of whether the referent, meaning, or context was sacred or mundane. The goal of this inclusive approach was to bring an end to inappropriate contraction. When both of these things are considered—standard-sized gospel codices and standardization in the use of nomina sacra—the notion of ‘catholic’ consensus among early Christians becomes more than plausible. Given the evidence that he marshalled, Roberts probably overreached in arguing that there was a significant ‘degree of organization, of conscious planning, and uniformity of practice’ in the early church.9 Butcopy the early gospel manuscript

2nd/3rd-cent. gospels (Turner Group 9.1). In the 3rd cent., four codices (OT 9, P46, 529, and OT 183/207a) are in Turner’s Group 8 like several gospels (P101, P75, and P121), but only OT 75A is in Turner Group 8.2, the preferred size for 3rd-cent. gospels. Moreover, most 3rd- and 3rd/4th- cent. Christian codices are in various other sizes. 5 For bibliography and a recent overview see Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts,95–134. 6 For Roberts the nomina sacra represent a nascent Christian creed, a kind of 1st-cent. identity statement (Manuscript, 28). Along similar lines Hurtado argues that the four earliest nomina sacra appear to give visual expression to ‘the ‘binitarian shape’ of earliest Christian piety and devotion’ (Earliest Christian Artifacts, 106, citing his earlier work including Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 134–53). 7 Roberts identified ‘three classes’ of words: (1) the four divine names/titles whose contraction was early and ‘invariable’; (2) FÆ, ¼Łæø#, and #Æıæ# which are found contracted ‘relatively early and frequently’; and (3) Ææ, ıƒ#, #øæ, Åæ, PæÆ#, #æƺ, ˜Æı, and æı#ƺ which are contracted irregularly or inconsistently (Manuscript, 27). My own research hasReview shown that in 2nd- and 3rd-cent. gospel MSS FÆ is virtually part of Robert’s class (1) and Ææ is edging into his class (2): see S. D. Charlesworth, ‘Consensus Standardiza- tion in the Systematic Approach to Nomina Sacra in Second- and Third-Century Gospel Manuscripts’, Aegyptus, 86 (2006): 37–68. 8 Roberts, Manuscript, 27. V. Martin and R. Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Evangile de Luc chap. 3–24 (Cologny-Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961), 18–19, agree that use of contrac- tions led inevitably to scribal confusion. In contrast, Hurtado contends that there are only ‘a comparatively small number of variations and inconsistencies’ and that we should not have unrealistic expectations of ancient scribes (Earliest Christian Artifacts, 127). For a negative view of inconsistency see C. M. Tuckett, ‘“Nomina Sacra”: Yes and No?’, in J.-M. Auwers and H. J. Jonge, eds., The Biblical Canons (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 431–58. 9 Roberts, Manuscript, 41. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

‘Catholicity’ in Early Gospel Manuscripts 39 evidence now supports this conclusion. The two indicators of ‘catholicity’ outlined here prove that there was consensus and collaboration between early Christian groups. However, the same manuscript evidence also shows that collaboration had its limits. Variation between manuscripts in the words that were systematically contracted and in the use of lectional aids makes this clear. Therefore, the term ‘catholicity’, which as used here has no reference to later periods, should be understood to connote cooperative collaboration and not hierarchical uniformity. All of this has far-reaching implications for the ‘heterodox’-dominant view of early Christianity.

SYSTEMATIC CONTRACTION OF NOMINA SACRA

In early gospel manuscripts the sacred-contraction/mundane-plene distinc- tion is always maintained as regards Ł#, and is not an issue with Å#F# and æØ##. But ŒæØ# presented an interpretative problem. For example, when a slave is found to be faithful and wise at the coming of his owner, should ŒæØ# be contracted or not (Matt. 24: 45–7)? Though the immediate context is strictly mundane or non-sacred, ŒæØ# might be considered sacred in wider context because it is the Son of Man who will comecopy unexpectedly (v. 44). Likewise, who is the ŒæØ# who goes to a far country to receive a kingdom and then return (Luke 19: 12–27, esp. 16, 18, 20, 25)? When other words like FÆ and Ææ were added, scribes would have encountered even more problems in deciding whether or not the context required contraction. For instance, does the Ææ of the prodigal son have a sacred referent (Luke 15: 18–24, 32)? And what about the kingdom of heaven being like a certain king who made a marriage for fiHıƒfiH (Matt. 22: 2)? The resultant interpretive blunders led to ‘standardization’ in the use of nomina sacra. This probably took place in the second half of the second century and involved systematic or wholesale contraction of ŒæØ# and several other words such as FÆ and Ææ.10 For example, in P66 every occurrence of ŒæØ# is contracted. (In the following examplesReview sacred are followed by mundane occurrences and separ- ated by a double bar. Compendia are listed in the order nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, and dative cases.) . Œ (4), Œ (18), Œ (5), Œ (2) k Œ# (15: 15), Œ (4: 11, 15, 19; 5: 7; 9: 36; 12: 21), Æıø Œ (20: 15), ı (13: 16; 15: 20) Something similar is happening in the treatment of Ææ.

10 For a much more detailed discussion of what follows see Charlesworth, ‘Consensus Standardization’,37–68. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

40 Scott Charlesworth

. Åæ (37), ÆÅæ, æ (5), æ, æÆ (28), ÆæÆ (14:16), æ# (12), Ææ# _ (6: 45), æØ (7) k ÆÅæ (4: 53), Åæ (6: 42; 8: 39, 56), æ# (4: 20), Ææ# (6: 49, 58), Ææ# (8: 44, 53), æ# (4: 12; 8: 38, 41, 44), Ææø (7: 22) Again there seems to be an effort to be comprehensive. However, a number of plene occurrences of the word eluded the scribe. Some 3/93 sacred and 6/14 mundane instances were left uncontracted.11 Association with four divine names might have inspired extension of conventional treatment to other words. For example, the Jews sought even more to put Christ to death because æÆ œØ ºª Ł j œ# Æı Øø ø Łø (5: 18). The same background motivation might have led to a mundane contraction at 6: 42, where the scribe has written ŒÆØ ºjª ıå’ ı# #Ø Ø# ßœ# œøj#Åç’ ı - ÅØ# ØÆ æÆ ϗ Å j ÅæÆ, and where the relative pronoun y might have been seen to lend ÆæÆ sacred value. But pious reasons for mundane contraction are inadequate when it comes to John 8. Apart from 4: 12, 20 and 6: 42, the problematic mundane contractions are all in this chapter. —Ææ when used of Abraham as the father of the Jews is contracted three times (8: 39, 53, 56),12 and when referring to Satan 2/3 times (vv. 38, 41, 44).13 There are also two sacred contractions (vv. 41–2), and two plene mundane occurrences in this chapter (vv. 44a, 53a). These were either the scribe’s only moments of clarity in a generally drowsy after-lunch session (a number of uncontracted sacred instances are overlooked, so thecopy scribe would probably be more careless when it came to non-sacred instances), or they slipped under his comprehensive-contraction approach along with a number of others. The latter explanation is undoubtedly more attractive because choosing between sacred or mundane meaning was obviously not a factor. So rather than scribal error resulting in contraction of 8/14 mundane instances, the scribe neglected to contract 6/14 mundane instances. That means that with the goal of contracting all occurrences of Ææ he failed to do so 9/107 times. The same phenomenon occurs in P75 in the treatment of FÆ. . Æ (11), # (3), Ø (2) k Æ (Luke 23: 46; 24: 37, 39; 8: 55; 9: 39; 11: 24; 13: 11; John 3: 6, 8), Æ (Luke 11: 26), ıÆÆ (Luke 10: 20), Æø (Luke 6: 18), Ø (Luke 8: 29; 9: 42; John 4: 23–4), Æ#Ø (Luke 4: 36), Ø (JohnReview 3: 8)

11 The scribe is generally consistent in not contracting the mundane occurrences of the plural (6: 49, 58; 7: 22), but writes Ø æ# Åø ø æØ ıø æ#ŒıÅ#Æ (4: 20). 12 The Jewish claim of descendancy from Abraham is rendered Åæ Åø ÆæÆÆ’ j #Ø (8: 39). Further, we find the Jews asking Jesus Å #ı <>ØjÇø Ø ı Æ æ# Åø ÆæÆÆ’ j # Ø # ÆŁÆ (v. 53), and the penultimate word of Jesus on the matter is ÆæÆ Æ ’ j Åæ ßø ŪƺºØÆ#Æ œÆ œjÅ Å ÅæÆ Å Å (v. 56). 13 The scribe puts the words of Jesus to the Jews as ı Æ øæÆŒÆ ÆæÆ ı æ# j Ø (8:38), and ßØ# j Ø Æ æªÆ ı æ# ßø (v. 41), and finally ßØ# Œ ı Ææ# j ı Øƺı # ŒÆØ Æ# ØjŁıØÆ ı æ# ßø ŁºÆØ j ØØ (v. 44). OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

‘Catholicity’ in Early Gospel Manuscripts 41

Again pious scribal activity may be gravitating outward from the nomina divina and extending sacred contraction to associated words. For example, sacred context (Æ Ł#, 4: 24) and perhaps theological background (cf. Luke 8: 55) might have inspired the scribe to write that true worshippers must do so Ø ŒÆØ ÆºÅŁØÆ (John 4: 23). But all other instances (Luke 4: 36; 6: 18; 8: 29; 9: 39, 42; 10: 20; 11: 24, 26) except one (ıÆÆ, Luke 13: 11) refer to evil or unclean spirits, yet are contracted and overstroked. As with the contracted use of Ææ when referring to Satan in P66, there can be no confusion of sacred and mundane distinctions in these cases. Rather, the scribe is treating every occurrence of the word conventionally because of association with the Holy Spirit. That is why the woman had suffered a Æ of infirmity for eighteen years (Luke 13: 11). The presence of the same approach in all of the larger continuous gospel manuscripts suggests that most were produced in small copying centres14 where ‘policy’ dictated some aspects of production.15 The wholesale approach to contraction represents an effort to produce ‘standard’ copies of manuscripts (although the usual textual variation would still apply). The further implica- tion is that there was agreement in various places to contract these words systematically. Thus, the manuscripts themselves point to a higher degree of communication and collaboration between early Christian communities and their copying centres than has often been allowed.16copy Conventional approaches to manuscript production, in terms of codex size and the wholesale contraction of nomina sacra, are indicative of an inter- connected ‘catholic’ church in the second half of the second century. (The use of nomina sacra by itself cannot be considered an indicator of catholicity because compendia occur in virtually every kind of Christian text and document.) However, the evidence does not appear to support the idea that a conciliar directive specified exactly what words were to be systematically contracted. Rather, variation in the words so treated from manuscript to manuscript suggests that there was consensus adoption of a limited number of words. P66 and P45 contract ŒæØ#, FÆ, Ææ, #Æıæ#, and #Æıæø systematically,17 while P75 treats ŒæØ#, FÆ, and #æƺ

14 See A. Mugridge,Review‘What is a Scriptorium?’, in J. Frösén et al., eds., Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1–7 August, 2004 (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 2007), 781–92, who shows that the word ‘scriptorium’ or a Greek equivalent was not used in the early period. 15 P45 is the exception: see Charlesworth (‘Public and Private’, 163–7) and Table 2.2 below. 16 On the movement of written communications and manuscripts between early Christian groups see H. Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 108–32. See also M. B. Thompson, ‘The Holy Internet: Communication between Churches in the First Christian Generation’, in R. J. Bauckham (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 49–70; and L. Alexander, ‘Ancient Book Production and Circulation of the Gospels’, ibid. 71–105. 17 Note that both #Æıæ# and #Æıæø occur only once in P45. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

42 Scott Charlesworth systematically, but not Ææ, #Æıæ#, and #Æıæø. Such differences illustrate that ‘catholic’ collaboration took the form of consensus, rather than formal, detailed agreement. This conclusion is confirmed by the variety of text division markers used in controlled settings.

OTHER ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN SCRIBAL CULTURE

The codices in Table 2.1 share a number of common characteristics—uni- formity in size, hands in the semi-literary to (formative) biblical majuscule range, and the use of text division and punctuation as readers’ aids.18 When these three factors are present as a group, especially in tandem with checking and correction, the manuscript was probably produced in a ‘controlled’ setting for public use in Christian gatherings (perhaps, as mentioned above, in small copy centres comprised of two or more scribes19). All of these things add up to quality control. Systematic contraction (not simply the presence) of nomina sacra may be another sign of controlled production.20 It implies production that is to some extent policy-driven, something that quality control also implies. In contrast, codices with informal or documentarycopy hands21 which lack features conducive to public reading, even though they may be conventional in size, were probably copied in uncontrolled settings for private use.22 For example, the unconventional sizes of P52 and P45 point to uncontrolled production. The same is true of P111, P119, and P37, but like the remaining third- century codices there are additional reasons for their ‘private’ designation—

18 Readers’ aids, lectional signs, and punctuation were developed from the 2nd cent. bc onwards to assist word recognition within continuous rows of letters: G. Cavallo and H. Maehler, Hellenistic Bookhands (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 17, 19–21. For detailed discussion of what follows see Charlesworth, ‘Public and Private’, 149–52. 19 Gamble, Books and Readers,120–1; G. Zuntz, ‘The Text of the Epistles’,inid.,Opuscula Selecta (Manchester: MUP, 1972), 252–68, esp. 266–8; id., The Text of the Epistles: a Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (Schweich Lectures, 1946; Oxford: OUP, 1953), 271–5; Roberts, Manuscript,24. 20 Charlesworth, ‘Consensus Standardization’, 66. P45, which has been designated private/ uncontrolled,Review is an exception: see n. 15. 21 We can visualize broad but non-exclusive categories of 2nd- and 3rd-cent. hands ranging from literary and semi-literary through informal to documentary and scholarly. W. A. Johnson’s three categories of hands parallel those used here: (1) ‘formal, semi-formal, or pretentious’; (2) ‘informal and unexceptional’; (3) ‘substandard or cursive’: Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 102; cf. 161. The vast majority of literary rolls in his samples fall into the first and second categories. 22 The categories of ‘public/controlled’ and ‘private/uncontrolled’ should not be seen as inflexible classifications to be imposed on the evidence. A manuscript might be used in both public and private settings, or an individual might make or obtain a copy of a ‘public’ manuscript for ‘private’ use or vice versa. But, in general, the documentary evidence can be divided into public and private categories. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

‘Catholicity’ in Early Gospel Manuscripts 43

Table 2.1. ‘Public’ Gospel Manuscripts

MS Gospel(s) Turner Group Handa Text Divisionb Use/Prod.c

2nd century P103 Matt 10 semi-lit., bk pub./c P77 Matt 10 semi-lit., bk pg. vac. ek.? pub./c P90 John 9.1 semi-lit., bk ek. en. sp.? pub./c P104 Matt 9.1 formal round sp.? pub.?/c þ P64 67 Matt 9.1 bibl. majuscule : ek. pub./c 2nd/3rd century P4 Luke 9.1 bibl. maj. : ek. pg. pub./c P66 John 9 decorated round : ’ > - , vac. ek. sp. pub./c 3rd century P108 John 9.1 semi-lit., bk ? pub.?/c? P75 Luke, John 8 elegant maj. : > sp. ek. pg. pub./c P121 John 8 semi-lit., bk sp pub.?/c? P95 John 8.2 bibl. maj. nil pub.?/c? P70 Matt 8.2 semi-lit., bk sp. pub.?/c? P5 John 8.2 semi-lit., !doc. sp. pub./c P39 John 8.2 bibl. maj. sp. pub./c 3rd/4th centuryd P102 Matt 8 semi-lit., bk pub./c

a bk ¼ literary (lit.)/bookhand; doc. ¼ documentary/cursive hand (with arrows indicating whether it is closer to a bk or !doc. hand); inf. ¼ informal hand (which is in between [$] the other two hands). b pg. ¼ paragraphos; vac. ¼ vacant line ends; ek. ¼ ekthesis; en. ¼ enlargedcopyfirst letter of (sub)section; sp. ¼ ¼ : ¼ ¼ fi > ¼ fi ¼ space; medial/high point; dicolon; ’ apostrophe or line ller; diple line ller; and ´ text division marker or miscellaneous stroke. c In Tables 2.1 and 2.2 the intended use is either public (pub.) or private (priv.) and the type of production controlled (¼ c) or uncontrolled (¼ u). d P22 (roll) and 0171 (parchment codex) are excluded from Tables 2.1 and 2.2 along with five later MSS. (1) 0162 (P.Oxy. 6.847, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 09.182.43) is dated iv by Grenfell and Hunt (P. Oxy. 6 (1908), 4), J. van Haelst (Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens (1976), no. 436), and Turner (Typology, 157). (2) P35 (PSI 1.1, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence) is dated v/vi by G. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica (1967), 115, and G. Cavallo and H. Maehler, Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period (1987), 22, who say that the hand is an example of ‘fully-fledged “Alexandrian majuscule”’, the first traces of which appear in the 2nd cent., but which ‘does not reach its ideal form until the v/vi century’ (23; cf. 5). (3) P62 (P.Oslo. inv. 1661, University Library, Oslo) is very probably 4th-cent. It is dated early iv, L. Amundsen, ‘Christian Papyri from the Oslo Collection’, SO 24 (1945), 121–40; iv, K. Aland and B. Aland (The Text of the New Testament (21989), 100), van Haelst (Catalogue, no. 359); iv(?), Turner, Typology, 148. (4) P80 (P.Monts.Roca inv. 83, Abadia de Montserrat) is probably 5th cent. or later as are other MSS of John containing hermeneiai: see D. C. Parker, ‘Manuscripts of John’s Gospel with Hermeneiai’, in J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., Transmission and Reception (2006), 51. Cf. v–vi, Turner, Typology, 150. (5) P7 (Petrov 553, Kiev, Ukrainian National Library, F. 301 (KDA) ) was dated v (von Soden) and iv–vi (Gregory), but it was never photographedReview and was lost during the Second World War: see K. Aland, Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments (1967), 137–40, who agrees with Gregory’s classification of the MS as either a homily or a commentary and therefore not a NT papyrus (C. E. Hill kindly provided this reference). informal or documentary hands and a lack of punctuation and readers’ aids. Yet in most cases standard sizes were still preferred, suggesting that convention was strong enough to dictate size even as the number of private copies of the gospels increased. Perhaps the same thing might be said of systematic contraction of OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

44 Scott Charlesworth

Table 2.2. Private’ Gospel Manuscripts

Ms Gospel(s) Turner Group Hand Text Division Use/Prod.

2nd century P52 John 5Ab semi-lit., bk sp.? priv./u 3rd century P101 Matt 8 inf., bk$doc. nil ?/? P69 Luke 8.1 inf., bk$doc. ? priv./u P53 Matt 8.2 near doc./curs. sp.? priv.?/u? P107 John 8.2 semi-curs., doc. ? priv.?/u? P106 John 8.2 non-lit., !doc. nil priv./u P109 John 8.2 non-lit., unprof. nil priv.?/u? P1 Matt 8.2 inf., bk$doc. priv./u P28 John 8.2 !doc./curs. nil priv./u P111 Luke 7 semi-doc. nil priv./u P119 John 5 inf., bk$doc. nil priv.?/u? P45 Matt-John 4 elegant maj. priv./u 3rd/4th century P37 Matt 7 doc./cursive sp.? priv./u

nomina sacra because it occurs in ‘private’ manuscripts like P45. But this cannot be verified because only singular instances of contractioncopy in mundane contexts occur in less well-preserved papyri.23 The ‘culture of standardization’ visible in the two ‘catholic’ indicators discussed above did not extend to these other aspects of scribal culture. This is perhaps understandable when manuscripts were being copied in private/uncontrolled settings. But even among public/controlled manuscripts there is no standardized use of punctuation and readers’ aids. In the case of text division, local approaches seem to have had precedence over what may have pertained elsewhere. The use of text division seems to have been both conventional and individual in that practice varied at the local level. As with variation in the words that were systematically contracted, the degree of collaboration evident in the standardized features of early gospels needs to be qualified by the implications of conventional, but far from system- atized, textReview division. That is, ‘standardization’ seems to have proceeded so far and no further, and this may be illustrative of the situation at large, which can be described as informal sharing or ‘consensus’ rather than formal agreement.

23 The sole contractions in mundane contexts of FÆ in P4 (Ø) and P37 ([Æ]) and of ¼Łæø# in P22 (Æ#) and P69 (Æ:½) may or may not be evidence of systematic contraction. Note that of these four MSS only P4 has been designated public/controlled. OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

‘Catholicity’ in Early Gospel Manuscripts 45 MEDITERRANEAN TEXTS

Conservative scribal desire for a shared culture is evident on another front. Cavallo and Maehler have used the Herculaneum papyri in particular to ‘contribute to the reconstruction of a typology of scripts that is Hellenistic rather than Ptolemaic’.24 Their analysis demonstrates that literary scripts of the Hellenistic and early Roman period ‘developed along very similar lines’ in Egypt and southern Italy (Herculaneum). Indeed, there may have been, to use their word, a koiné of Greek literary scripts across the Mediterranean world.25 The implication is that literary scripts were common scribal property, like the Christian scribal conventions discussed above.26 The ancient world lacked ‘an organised and systematic system for the conveyance of personal correspondence’.27 Individual senders had to look out for travellers, known or otherwise, who may or may not be reliable, to deliver their letters.28 Paul preferred to use associates, who often doubled as his emissaries, as letter-carriers (see 1 Cor. 4: 17; 2 Cor. 8: 16–24; 9: 3–5; Phil. 2: 25–30; cf. Eph. 6: 21–2; Col. 4: 7–9).29 But from the second century ad letter- carriers were apparently not too hard to find since correspondents are ‘quick to accuse each other of neglect in writing’.30 Gospel manuscripts must have moved around the Roman world by the same means. For example, if P52 were copied in or came to Egypt soon after it was copied, thecopy Gospel of John, though apparently written in western Asia Minor,31 was known in Egypt by (or before) the middle of the second century.32 Rather than just being examples

24 Cavallo and Maehler, Hellenistic Bookhands, 6. Texts written in Greek have also been found in Derveni (Macedonia) and Qumran. 25 Cavallo and Maehler, Hellenistic Bookhands,16–17. 26 Cavallo and Maehler suggest that this may have been ‘due to intensified cultural exchanges as a result of more intense political and economic relations between the Romans and the Hellenistic world’ (Hellenistic Bookhands, 16). 27 S. R. Llewelyn, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vii (Sydney: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1994), 1–57, here 51; id., ‘Sending Letters in the Ancient World’, TynBul 46 (1995): 337–56; H.-J. Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament (1998; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 60–5. The Roman cursus publicus or state postal service was ‘intended only for the purposes of the government, administration, and military’ (Klauck, Ancient Letters, 63). 28 ‘The wealthyReview could send their own slaves or avail themselves of independent couriers, the so-called tabellarii . . . There were also private tax collectors . . . [who] maintained their own courier service which they shared with others for a price. Family members, friends, merchants, soldiers—all could be given letters when they went on journeys’ (ibid. 63). 29 See Llewelyn, New Documents,51–7, for discussion of the delivery of New Testament and non-canonical letters. 30 Llewelyn, New Documents, 27, citing H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee and Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki: Finnish Academy, 1956), 64–7. Private letters found their way to Egypt from all parts of the Mediterranean world: see E. G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Oxford: OUP, 1968; rev. edn. 1980), 50–1, 96. 31 See Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1. 32 Roberts urged caution but listed an impressive array of papyrological authorities who supported his 100–150 dating: see C. H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

46 Scott Charlesworth of local texts,33 manuscripts of Egyptian provenance probably represent gospel texts from around the Mediterranean world.34 Thus, shared scripts and the mobility of manuscripts provide further support for the idea that the two scribal conventions under discussion are indeed indicators of ‘catholicity’.

‘CATHOLIC’ AND ‘ORTHODOX’?

The evidence for later second- and second/third-century ‘catholicity’ presents real problems for the Bauer thesis.35 Did the Gnostic, Montanist, and Marcio- nite groups, which he claims dominated early Christianity36, reach a consen- sus about conventional approaches to manuscript production in the second half of the second century? This is highly improbable when each group was busy insisting on its own version of Christianity37 and when early non-canonical gospel papyri38 are private manuscripts without indications of catholicity.39 in the John Rylands Library (Manchester: MUP, 1935), 16; id., ‘An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library’, BJRL 20 (1936): 44–55 (47); id., P.Ryl. 3 (1938): 1–3. Turner (Typology, 100) accepted Roberts’s dating and G. Cavallo (Il Calamo e il Papiro (Florence: Edizioni Gonnelli, 2005), 183, 198) dates the papyrus to c.150. In contrast B. Nongbri argues, also on palaeographical grounds, that ‘any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuriescopy’: ‘The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel’, HTR 98 (2005): 46. 33 So e.g. K.W. Clark, The Gentile Bias and Other Essays (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 127: ‘All the manuscripts so far discovered, including the most sensational of recent discoveries, may enable us to recover no more than the early text in Egypt.’ 34 E. J. Epp, ‘New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times’, in B. A. Pearson et al., The Future of Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 35–56. 35 See W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity, tr. Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins (ed. R. A. Kraft and G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). Bauer’s atmos- pherics underlie the perspective of B. D. Ehrman in particular: see his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York: OUP, 1993), 3–46. Cf. W. L. Petersen, ‘The Diatessaron and the Fourfold Gospel’, in C. Horton (ed.), The Earliest Gospels (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 50–68. 36 Bauer argued that in the 2nd cent. central and eastern Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Mesopotamia were dominated by heresy (Orthodoxy and Heresy, 170–2, 192–3). Indeed, ‘heresy constituted Christianity to such a degree that a confrontation with the ecclesiastical faith [i.e., orthodoxy] was not necessary and was scarcely even possible’ (p. 170). 37 Bauer wrongly asserts that each version of Christianity had its own gospel (Orthodoxy and Heresy, 203).Review 38 There are early papyri of two known non-canonical gospels: (1) Gospel of Thomas—P.Oxy. 4.654 (British Library, London, Pap. 1531), opisthographic roll; P.Oxy. 1.1 (Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS. Gr. th e. 7[P]), codex; P.Oxy. 4.655 (Houghton Library, Harvard University, SM 4367), roll. (2) Gospel of Mary—P.Oxy. 50.3525 (Papyrology Rooms, Sackler Library, Oxford), roll; P.Ryl. 3.463 (John Rylands Library, Manchester, Greek Papyrus 463), codex. Whether the following papyri are early evidence for the Gospel of Peter is contested—P.Oxy. 41.2949 (Papyr- ology Rooms, Sackler Library, Oxford), roll; P.Oxy. 60.4009 (Papyrology Rooms, Sackler Library, Oxford), codex. Of papyri possibly from unknown gospels, the so-called Egerton Gospel has received the most attention—P. Egerton inv. 2 (British Museum, London, P.Egerton 1/P.Lond. Christ. 1) þ P.Köln 6.255 (Institut für Altertumskunde, Universität Köln, inv. 608), codex. 39 See S. D. Charlesworth, Early Christian Gospels (forthcoming). OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

‘Catholicity’ in Early Gospel Manuscripts 47

Non-canonical gospels are also at a serious disadvantage in terms of frequency of citation40 and preservation.41 If the ‘heterodox’ were in the majority for so long, non-canonical gospels should have been preserved in greater numbers in Egypt.42 But the earliest papyri provide ‘no support for Bauer’s view’.43 Therefore, scribal conventions in second- and second/third-century gospel papyri are indicative of ‘catholic’ collaboration and consensus, presumably among the ‘orthodox’.44 As part of his imaginative analysis Bauer often assumed that literary texts represented larger Christian groups or factions and not just their authors.45

40 If non-canonical gospels had as much or indeed more currency than the canonical gospels, we should expect to find frequent citations or allusions in the Apostolic Fathers and 2nd-cent. writers. But the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Peter are not cited by any known writer. Even the Gospel of Thomas has only two early 3rd-cent. citations: one which purports to be a quotation from the Gospel according to Thomas used by the Naassenes is more allusion than citation (Hipp., Haer. 5.7.20//GThomas 4; c.222–35), while the other (apparently from the same source) is again similar but worded quite differently (Hipp., Haer. 5.8.32//GThomas 11b). The only two close parallels are both 4th-cent. (Didymus, Comm. Ps. 88.8//GThomas 82; Macarius, Logia 55.5//GThomas 113). See H. W. Attridge, ‘The Greek Fragments’, in B. Layton (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7, together with XIII,2, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926 (1) and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 103–9; D. Lührmann with E. Schlarb, Fragmente apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache (Marburg: Elwert, 2000), 131. 41 After excluding P7 and including P. Papyrus inv. 2, in terms of preservation the four canonical gospels outnumber the four non-canonical gospels by more than 4 tocopy 1 (35 canonical gospel to 8 non- canonical gospel fragments). If P. Oxy. 41.2949 and 60.4009 are not early fragments of the Gospel of Peter, the ratio is 5.8 to 1. When comparison is made with the Gospel of Thomas alone, the figures are: John (16), Matthew (12), Luke (6), Thomas (3), Mark (1). However, in terms of the conventional vehicle for gospels, Luke is preserved in six codices and the Gospel of Thomas in only one. Preference for Matthew probably explains the lack of Marcan papyri. þ II Matt (P64 67 P77 P103 P104), John (P52 P90), GPeter (P. Oxy. 60.4009), Egerton Pap. 2 þ P. Köln 6.255 II/III Luke (P4), John (P66), Peter (P. Oxy. 41.2949), GThomas (P. Oxy. 1.1) III Matt (P1 P45 P53 P70 P101), Mark (P45), Luke (P45 P69 P75 P111), John (P5 P22 P28 P39 P45 P75 P95 P106 P107 P108 P109 P119 P121), GThomas (P. Oxy. 4.654, 655), GMary (P. Oxy. 50.3525, P.Ryl. 3.463) III/IV Matt (P37 P102 0171), Luke (0171) 42 See Roberts’s comments on the preservation of Gnostic papyri (Manuscript,51–2). 43 B. A. Pearson, Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 13–14. See also B. A. Pearson, ‘Earliest Christianity in Egypt: Some Observations’, in B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring, eds., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis: FortressReview Press, 1986), 132–59; id., ‘Earliest Christianity in Egypt: Further Obser- vations’, in J. E. Goehring and J. A. Timbie, eds., The World of Early Egyptian Christianity (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 97–112. On alleged Gnostic preference for the Gospel of John in Egypt see C. E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: OUP, 2004); and J. Chapa, ‘The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Gospel of John in Egypt’, VC 64 (2010): 327–52. 44 The terms ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heterodoxy’ carry too much baggage from the later period to encapsulate adequately the general naiveté of the earliest period. In general, earliest Christianity tolerated diversity. Proto-orthodoxy developed into orthodoxy through the escalating conflict with increasingly extreme heterodoxy. 45 T. A. Robinson, The Bauer Thesis Examined (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1988), 36–42; cf. W. Völker, ‘Walter Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum’, tr. T. P. Scheck, OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINALS, 12/5/2012, SPi

48 Scott Charlesworth

Such an approach is only credible when there is sufficient weight of evidence.46 The combination of evidence adduced here shows that conventional textual practices were already established among ‘catholic’ Christians by the second half of the second century47 when standard-sized codices of the canonical gospels were being produced for public use in Christian gatherings.48 Despite an increase in the number of private manuscripts, a similar situation pertained in the third century. Questions about unity and diversity in relation to geographical areas will have to be left for others to answer.

JECS 14 (2006): 399–405 (¼ ZKG 54 (1935): 628–31). For surveys of scholarly reaction see G. Strecker, ‘The Reception of the Book’, revised and augmented by R. A. Kraft, in Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 286–316; D. J. Harrington, ‘The Reception of Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity during the last Decade’, HTR 73 (1980): 289–98; M. R. Desjardins, ‘Bauer and Beyond: On Recent Scholarly Discussions of hairesis in the Early Christian Era’, SecCent 8 (1991): 65–82. For a recent critique see A. J. Köstenberger and M. J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010). 46 F. Wisse, ‘The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner Diversity and Conflict’, in C. Hedrick and R. Hodgson, Jr., eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986), 177–90. 47 Contra R. S. Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt (Princeton: PUP, 2009), the standard sizes of 2nd- and 3rd-cent. gospel codices confirm the dates generally assigned by papyrologists. 48 Justin’s statement that the IÅÆÆ H Iºø (1 Apol. 67.3; Dial. 103.8, 106.3, etc.) L ŒÆºEÆØ PƪªºØÆ (1 Apol. 66.3; cf. Dial. 10.2; 100.1) were read at mid-2nd-cent. Christian services for the instruction of those gathered (1 Apolcopy. 67.3–4) appears to have had wider application than just Rome.

Review