The Acquisition of the University of Michigan’s Portion of the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri and a New Suggested Provenance

Nongbri, Brent

doi:10.1515/apf-2014-0108

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a wider papyrological context, the Artemidorus 63. On the last two, see now Robinson 2011 and2014. On the provenience of the central portion of the Chester Beatty papyri (i.e., the well-known biblical codices), see recently Nongbri 2014. As is well known, the circumstances in which all these assemblages were found is disputed. 64.…”

Section: This Paper Forms Part Of Work On a Research Project On Forgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…I raise this point not to claim Sinaiticus is later than the mid-fourthcentury date to which it is usually assigned, but to use it as an example of something which seems immovable, because it is part of a system which interlocks, a piece which, if moved in date, would require adjustments to other parts of the system. So too the movement of P.Bodmer 2, and P.Chester Beatty 14-15, 93 would require some rethinking of the way the textual transmission of the NT progresses (see Nongbri 2014Nongbri , 2016). Yet we must be prepared to consider such possibilities.…”

Section: This Paper Forms Part Of Work On a Research Project On Forgementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dating Papyri: Familiarity, Instinct and Guesswork¹

Choat¹

2019

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article surveys the history of palaeographical dating of papyri, reﬂecting on its origins as a system, and what lessons this might have for contemporary practice. In examining the beginnings of palaeography as a discipline in the late seventeenth century with the work of scholars such as Jean Mabillon, it highlights the concerns of that period, especially the authenticity of documents. In this context, palaeographical dating was only one (though of course an important component) of a range of tools scholars used to date and authenticate texts. In the same way, contemporary scholars use an array of methods to date the texts they study, including script, language, content, and the physical properties of the ink and its support. This article highlights the importance of understanding the limitations of each of these methods, whether caused by their subjective nature or the current limits of scientiﬁc knowledge, and emphasizes one of the key lessons of Mabillon’s practice, the broad familiarity with many types of script and manuscript which allow these to be properly contextualized and understood.

show abstract

Section: This Paper Forms Part Of Work On a Research Project On Forgementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: This Paper Forms Part Of Work On a Research Project On Forgementioning

confidence: 99%

Dating Papyri: Familiarity, Instinct and Guesswork¹

Choat¹

2019

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All of them were also interpreted in various ways according to the interpretive choices of their respective times of discovery, which always leaves room for the option of portraying an unfavored interpretation as an out-of-place subtext. 6 From hindsight, to give some examples, it is easy to perceive how the early scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls overplays the Essene 5 Note that the details of the discovery stories for all of these discoveries are murky, and especially the provenance of the Chester Beatty Papyri remains unsatisfactory, for which see Nongbri (2014). Dead Sea Scrolls, likewise, were noted for the 'varying accounts of the initial discovery' early on, as pointed out by Hyatt (1957: 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%