T. C. Skeat, [prod ]⁶⁴⁺⁶⁷ and [prod ]⁴, and the Problem of Fibre Orientation in Codicological Reconstruction

Abstract

Because of the uniformity of the text, NT papyri are well suited to codicological reconstruction. If there are two or more pieces of papyrus from the same codex, sound reconstructions are often possible. But good methodology will account for the fibre orientation of the fragments. Flawed conclusions are the inevitable result of neglecting such analysis. Skeat erred in this direction as regards ∏ 64ϩ67 and ∏ 4 . Nevertheless, his contribution in the area was substantial and enduring. It only remains for scholars to appreciate the insights that codicology can bring to the study of the NT text.Towards the end of his long life, T. C. Skeat attempted to bolster a theory he had advanced several years earlier: that Christians adopted the codex around 100 ce because it could hold the four gospels in a format that delimited them against heterodox rivals. 1 While conceding that without any fragments of an early second-century, four-gospel codex the theory remained conjectural, he now claimed to have proved that ∏ 64ϩ67 and ∏ 4 came from a four-gospel, single-quire codex whose ancestors 'must go back well into the second century'. 2 Throughout his article Skeat avoids 'any mention of recto or verso, terms which cause hopeless confusion when used in connection with a papyrus codex, since to papyrologists they inevitably suggest the sides with horizontal and vertical fibres respectively, which is irrelevant and confusing [in]. . .the case of a codex'. 3 While it 582 New Test. Stud. 53, pp. 582-604. Printed in the United Kingdom is true that confusion can easily result from trying to account for fibre orientation in codicological reconstructions, or from the different traditional and papyrological meanings of recto and verso (the reason why → and ↓ as indicators of fibre direction are to be preferred), 4 this methodological dictum is misleading. 5 Analysis of fibre direction is an essential part of codicology 6 and when ignored the inevitable result is inaccurate conclusions.The Codicology of ∏ 67

Manuscripts, Textual Variants, and Bible Translators

“…5 A brief account of Constantine's instruction to Eusebius, with reference to the sources, is given in Metzger and Ehrman 2005, 15-16; for a general account of the significance of the Age of Constantine for the New Testament text see Aland and Aland 1987, 64-67. 6 The difficulties with Skeat's claim that these three papyri are not only the work of a single scribe, but also all part of the same single-quire manuscript of the Four Gospels, are outlined by Head (2005); much more technical detail is provided by Charlesworth (2007). For a comparative study of the text of the three manuscripts, see Wasserman (2010 On the lighter side, Skeat's Collected Writings also includes a dramatised account of the possible formation of the Four-Gospel Codex, and a brief imaginative account of how the arrival in Constantinople of the fifty Bibles ordered by Constantine might have taken place.…”

“… 6. The difficulties with Skeat’s claim that these three papyri are not only the work of a single scribe, but also all part of the same single-quire manuscript of the Four Gospels, are outlined by Head (2005); much more technical detail is provided by Charlesworth (2007). For a comparative study of the text of the three manuscripts, see Wasserman (2010). …”