01-09-2008, 11:36 AM
The problem with this codex is that it is almost certainly not even a first century document. Codecies were not used until the third or fourth century C.E.
Next, most agree that John was not written until about 95 C.E. How could Mark have compiled this, then?
Note also that the text is missing Mark 15:13-38 and John 14:26-16:7. This could not be Apostolic in origin. It also has an interpolation after Mark 16:4.
Also indicative of a late date is the way the text shifts from one textual family to another abruptly. It doesn't just have mixed readings. It is unique in the fact that it will by skipping happily along in consistant Byzantine readings and suddenly bam! It's Western all of a sudden. This indicates that it was copied from several other mss of various families, which would force it to have a late date.
All in all, I would say that this codex can't legitimately be dated earlier than the fourth century C.E.
Shalom,
Dawid
Next, most agree that John was not written until about 95 C.E. How could Mark have compiled this, then?
Note also that the text is missing Mark 15:13-38 and John 14:26-16:7. This could not be Apostolic in origin. It also has an interpolation after Mark 16:4.
Also indicative of a late date is the way the text shifts from one textual family to another abruptly. It doesn't just have mixed readings. It is unique in the fact that it will by skipping happily along in consistant Byzantine readings and suddenly bam! It's Western all of a sudden. This indicates that it was copied from several other mss of various families, which would force it to have a late date.
All in all, I would say that this codex can't legitimately be dated earlier than the fourth century C.E.
Shalom,
Dawid