Eyewitness to Jesus

by Matthew d'Ancona, Carston Thiede

Christmas Eve 1994 would have come and gone like any other, had it not been for three tiny papyrus fragments discussed in The Times of London's sensational front-page story. The avalanche of letters to the editor jarred the world into realizing that Matthew d'Ancona's story was as big as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The flood of calls received by Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede, the scholar behind the story, and the international controversy that spread like wildfire, give us an inkling as to why the Magdalen Papyrus has embroiled Christianity in a high-stakes tug-of-war over the Bible.

Thiede and d'Ancona boldly tell the story of two scholars a century apart who stumbled on the oldest known remains of the New Testament--hard evidence confirming that St. Matthew's Gospel is the account of an eyewitness to Jesus. It starts in 1901 when the Reverend Charles B. Huleatt acquires three pieces of a manuscript on the murky antiquities market of Luxor, Egypt. He donates the papyrus fragments to his alma mater, Magdalen College in Oxford, England, where they are kept in a butterfly display case, along with Oscar Wilde's ring. For nearly a century, visitors hardly notice the Matthew fragments, initially dated to a.d.180-200; but after Dr. Thiede redates them to roughly a.d. 60, people flock to the library wanting to behold a first-century copy of the Gospel.

But what is all the fuss about? How can three ancient papyrus fragments be so significant? How did Thiede arrive at this radical early dating? And what does it mean to the average Christian? Now we have authoritative answers to these pivotal questions. Indeed, the Magdalen Papyrus corroborates the tradition that St. Matthew actually wrote the Gospel bearing his name, that he wrote it within a generation of Jesus' death, and that the Gospel stories about Jesus are true. Some will vehemently deny Thiede's claims, others will embrace them, but nobody can ignore Eyewitness to Jesus .

Genres: Spirituality, Theology

206 pages, Hardcover

First published March 1, 1996

Reviews

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honestly, while intriguing, I'm not sure their argument is airtight. I would certainly love it if it were, but I get the sense that they do more than a bit of cherry-picking of evidence in favor of these fragments being Gospels rather than other period Greek-language Jewish literature.
I've kept it on my shelf, and may use it again in the future. But a far more compelling case for the authenticity of Gospel accounts can be found in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.

[Nicholas A. Gilbert · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Yet, in the case which is this book's subject, empirical science may prove to be the handmaiden of faith rather than its archenemy.” (p. 170)

This was very thought provoking considering the results of Dr. Thiede’s assessment of the Magdalen Papyrus placing it at a much earlier age than before. Dr. Theide used an updated system for dating and consideration. Also, there was great information concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, and their contents.

A good book to aid in a broader study of this issue.

[Jill Hudson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating study of an ancient fragment of Matthew's Gospel which d'Ancoma and his co-author the eminent papyrologist Carsten Peter Thiede believe may date from as early as 60AD. Very few scholars have taken them seriously, mainly because many other scholars' assumptions and circular arguments lead them to believe that Matthew can't have been written that early. But there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't have been, and the authors argue this very convincingly. The portrait of Jesus painted by the Gospel writers is very likely to be a good deal more historical than many sceptics would want to admit.

[Shannon Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very gripping read, with strong claims, & some fascinating evidence. I am prone to believe them. Suggested reading.

[Cat. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hmmm.... This was one of those books that I felt like I missed something at the beginning that would make the book coherent. Sometimes authors come back around to it in chapter two, but not this time. It just felt like I walked into the room after the discussion started so not only didn’t I hear the beginning of the conversation, I didn’t even know the cast of characters or what everyone was all upset about. Ultimately, I made it to p. 108, just after the chapter on Charles Bousfield Huleatt, the man who discovered in Egypt three small (like thumbprint-sized) fragments of papyrus on which is written parts of St. Matt. He’s the real drama here: these fragments sat in the collection of miscellany at Magdelan College for almost 70 years before anyone even bothered to look them over closely. They then proceeded to turn biblical scholarship on its head. Huleatt himself was an Evangelical cleric in Luxor in the 1890s who was also interested in the field of textual criticism. He was transferred to Messina in Italy where he, his wife, and all of his children died in an earthquake in 1902. He was quickly forgotten, only to be rediscovered in the latter part of the last century, almost by accident.

I wish the book hadn’t been so hard to figure out. I didn’t finish it, which is extraordinarily unusual for a book like this. Oh, well. Less arguing about what the fragments mean and more explanation of what they say would be my suggestion!

[Daniel S. Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although a little tough to follow at times, if you stick with it, this book is like a detective story. The authors trace three fragments of a codex (an early form of book) of the Gospel of St. Matthew to Luxor Egypt, where they were discovered in 1901 by Charles B. Huleatt, an Oxford-educated missionary. The authors argue that the writing style was particular to the first century, and similar to that of a fragment of the Gospel of St. Mark found in one of the caves at Qumran in 1947 (the famous "Dead Sea Scrolls"). Since Qumran was destroyed by the Tenth Roman Legion in 68 A.D., the authors conclude that the scroll as well as the Luxor codex must have been written prior to that date. The authors explain that by using paprylogical evidence (the study of ancient manuscripts) rather than relying on modern theories promoted by many leading New Testament scholars, we can arrive at a much earlier date for when the Gospels were first written. Hence, rather than being recorded many years after the events they describe and of questionable reliability, the biographies of Jesus were probably written by eyewitnesses to his life.

[Amos Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a world rampant with skepticism, especially about the veracity of the biblical witness this book is a breath of fresh air. I am a progressive, but I agree with the authors: the origin of the Gospels is much earlier than the status-quo liberal scholars concede. And there is hard evidence of this in the Magdalene Papyrus! -Amos Smith (author of Healing The Divide: Recovering Christianity's Mystic Roots)

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Papyrologist's story of what he did to show the early authorship of Matthew.