A relatively interesting documentary which explores the recent provenance and later historical analysis of New Testament fragments dating from Antiquity, now referred to as the "Magdalen papyrus", because they contain fragments of the story about Mary Magdalen. The film focuses on recent revelations about New Testament manuscript fragments which had been housed in Oxford for over a century. Charles Huleatt, a somewhat forgotten Anglican priest, purchased the manuscript fragments in Cairo, circa 1900. When pictures of the fragments were sent to other scholars in the early 20th century, the general consensus at that time was the fragments probably dated to the 4th or 5th centuries CE and therefore were nothing that special apart from being very old. They were certainly interesting, but nothing which might challenge or change current historical research and sensibility. Part of the point of the documentary is to right an historical wrong.
The documentary suffers from two major shortcomings. On the first front, the claims and conclusions made by the documentary seem not only tenuous at best but mostly one-sided. The film appears to be more than just an exploration of the fragments but also determined to prove these particular fragments date nearly to the time of Jesus. The other issue is the documentary takes far too long to get to the crux of the matter.
The fragments in question, three small pieces of written papyrus less than the size of a credit card each appear to be from the Gospel of Matthew. The documentary claims that if these fragments prove to date from before circa 50 CE, then they could make a case the Gospel of Matthew was in fact written by an eye-witness of Jesus rather than later writers who probably lived a few generations after Jesus' death. They make the further claim if these fragments date from when they hope they do, therefore nearly all Gospels could have been written by eyewitnesses, particularly since most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was the basis for Matthew and later Luke.
Most current Biblical scholars assert the Gospel Writers were not in fact eyewitnesses to Jesus but lived and wrote much later. This is based on long intensive and extensive research based on very scant primary source evidence. While I don't have a problem with the documentary, proposing the possibility the fragments were written in the middle of the 1st century CE, the overall rhetoric seems bent on making this conclusion the final interpretation of the fragments.
The narrator often uses phrases like "therefore the date of the manuscript must be..." or "it is difficult not to conclude..." The conclusions that the fragments are highly likely to be from the middle of the 1st century are based solely on the analysis of a single scholar, a German New Testament historian Carsten Peter Thiede. Thiede concluded the handwriting styles were similar to those of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Khirbet Qumran near the Dead Sea, and therefore must be from the same time. This seems like water under the bridge because the handwriting of ancient papyrus seems very consistent from the time of Jesus all the way to circa 200 CE. The documentary shows similar characteristics between the fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the handwriting style appeared quite different between the two, and this is coming from someone who is not a professional scholar. The Dead Sea Scroll letters were pushed together much more tightly, while there seemed to be much greater spaces between the letters of the fragments in question.
I got the feeling Thiede desperately wanted the fragments to be from the middle of the first century to take credit for not only revealing the oldest known fragments of the New Testament but proving that the writer Matthew and therefore other Gospel writers were actual eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus of Nazareth. According to some brief research I engaged in after viewing the film, the consensus among scholars today is that the fragment dates probably closer to the middle of the 2nd century CE, circa 135-175 CE, about 100 years after Thiede's claim. Simultaneously, this is no question one of the oldest New Testament fragments known to exist, which is still a remarkable discovery by any standard.
The other difficulty with the documentary is its length. Over half the documentary is spent retracing the steps of a somewhat forgotten Anglican priest, Charles Huleatt and his residency in Egypt as an Anglican priest and Evangelical. The documentary clocks in at 90 minutes, with 45 to 50 minutes devoted to retracing the journey of the Anglican priest from Britain to Cairo who bought the fragments from an antiquities dealer over 100 years ago. I wanted to get to the matter of the manuscripts themselves a little bit sooner than the documentary allowed. I found I was less interested in knowing so much about Huleatt and the culture of Cairo circa 1900. For example, the kinds of outdoor vendors who sell tourist items, often replicas of Ancient Egyptian art, were giving much screen time.
Overall still an interesting documentary about a subject with which I was unfamiliar. Since scholarship has failed to prove with relative conclusiveness these fragments actually date from near the time of Jesus, they haven't altered current Christian scholarship. They are more of an interesting curiosity than a ground-breaking discovery. By contrast, the ancient codices found at Nag Hammadi proved to be previously unknown Christian texts (deemed heretical) and did fundamentally alter Christian scholarship. Previously, it was assumed Christianity developed through a more or less traceable linear history. The so-called Nag Hammadi Library proved Christianity was far more diverse with many more off-shoot groups than previously known. While the "Magdalen papyrus" is certainly a note-worthy discovery, it does not appear poised to radically alter New Testament scholarship.
The documentary suffers from two major shortcomings. On the first front, the claims and conclusions made by the documentary seem not only tenuous at best but mostly one-sided. The film appears to be more than just an exploration of the fragments but also determined to prove these particular fragments date nearly to the time of Jesus. The other issue is the documentary takes far too long to get to the crux of the matter.
The fragments in question, three small pieces of written papyrus less than the size of a credit card each appear to be from the Gospel of Matthew. The documentary claims that if these fragments prove to date from before circa 50 CE, then they could make a case the Gospel of Matthew was in fact written by an eye-witness of Jesus rather than later writers who probably lived a few generations after Jesus' death. They make the further claim if these fragments date from when they hope they do, therefore nearly all Gospels could have been written by eyewitnesses, particularly since most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was the basis for Matthew and later Luke.
Most current Biblical scholars assert the Gospel Writers were not in fact eyewitnesses to Jesus but lived and wrote much later. This is based on long intensive and extensive research based on very scant primary source evidence. While I don't have a problem with the documentary, proposing the possibility the fragments were written in the middle of the 1st century CE, the overall rhetoric seems bent on making this conclusion the final interpretation of the fragments.
The narrator often uses phrases like "therefore the date of the manuscript must be..." or "it is difficult not to conclude..." The conclusions that the fragments are highly likely to be from the middle of the 1st century are based solely on the analysis of a single scholar, a German New Testament historian Carsten Peter Thiede. Thiede concluded the handwriting styles were similar to those of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Khirbet Qumran near the Dead Sea, and therefore must be from the same time. This seems like water under the bridge because the handwriting of ancient papyrus seems very consistent from the time of Jesus all the way to circa 200 CE. The documentary shows similar characteristics between the fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the handwriting style appeared quite different between the two, and this is coming from someone who is not a professional scholar. The Dead Sea Scroll letters were pushed together much more tightly, while there seemed to be much greater spaces between the letters of the fragments in question.
I got the feeling Thiede desperately wanted the fragments to be from the middle of the first century to take credit for not only revealing the oldest known fragments of the New Testament but proving that the writer Matthew and therefore other Gospel writers were actual eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus of Nazareth. According to some brief research I engaged in after viewing the film, the consensus among scholars today is that the fragment dates probably closer to the middle of the 2nd century CE, circa 135-175 CE, about 100 years after Thiede's claim. Simultaneously, this is no question one of the oldest New Testament fragments known to exist, which is still a remarkable discovery by any standard.
The other difficulty with the documentary is its length. Over half the documentary is spent retracing the steps of a somewhat forgotten Anglican priest, Charles Huleatt and his residency in Egypt as an Anglican priest and Evangelical. The documentary clocks in at 90 minutes, with 45 to 50 minutes devoted to retracing the journey of the Anglican priest from Britain to Cairo who bought the fragments from an antiquities dealer over 100 years ago. I wanted to get to the matter of the manuscripts themselves a little bit sooner than the documentary allowed. I found I was less interested in knowing so much about Huleatt and the culture of Cairo circa 1900. For example, the kinds of outdoor vendors who sell tourist items, often replicas of Ancient Egyptian art, were giving much screen time.
Overall still an interesting documentary about a subject with which I was unfamiliar. Since scholarship has failed to prove with relative conclusiveness these fragments actually date from near the time of Jesus, they haven't altered current Christian scholarship. They are more of an interesting curiosity than a ground-breaking discovery. By contrast, the ancient codices found at Nag Hammadi proved to be previously unknown Christian texts (deemed heretical) and did fundamentally alter Christian scholarship. Previously, it was assumed Christianity developed through a more or less traceable linear history. The so-called Nag Hammadi Library proved Christianity was far more diverse with many more off-shoot groups than previously known. While the "Magdalen papyrus" is certainly a note-worthy discovery, it does not appear poised to radically alter New Testament scholarship.
