I finished this book in two days and found it very intriguing as to a topic new to me. Prior to my reading, I thought that the Egyptian found early 2nd century fragment of John's gospel was the earliest recovered piece of New Testament literature. However, this book proves that 3 fragments, also Egyptian found, are pre-Jerusalem destruction (AD 70) although once dated as 3rd-4th century. This book will be beneficial and faith augmenting to Christians because it shows that Matthew's gospel was written in the 60s of the first century, if not earlier, contrary to the vein of critical scholars who late date the New Testament and claim the real Jesus is clouded by post-destruction inventions. With this earlier, more historically reliable dating of the Matthean fragments, we can put Mark's gospel at an even earlier date! Speaking of the Markan account, this book also goes into some depth in establishing that a fragment found in Cave 7 at Qumran (home to the Dead Sea Scrolls) is indeed a portion of Mark, making its latest date AD 68. The authors do very well in justifying their conclusions, which they do also by juxtaposition of the fragments and other works of antiquity in what seems to be a valid methodology. I feel the Magdalen papyrus (the 3 Matthean fragments as to which the title refers) could very possibly to some extent revolutionize New Testament historical thinking by serving as a new paradigm. Anyone interested in Papyrology or New Testament historicity should read The Jesus Papyrus!

Carsten Peter Thiede was already a purportedly controversial and world-class scholar with his work on the roguishly new dating of Mark's gospel when he approached this unprecedented and ground-breaking investigation of the Titulus of Santa Croce, in Rome. The Santa Croce Church, having stood in the same plaque of land for 1700 years prior, regularly housed said aforementioned titulus for those same 1700 years. A titulus, which, for the uninitiated into this area of interest, is the headboard above criminals' heads on a cross, who were put to death by crucifixion, a worrisomely merciless practice of the Roman Empire. The titulus from Santa Croce is the one allegedly belonging to Christ's cross, a disputable and unproven insinuation, one that Thiede nevertheless strives to make a case for in his newest book.

In said book, Thiede submits some tantalizing and, more valuably, convincing evidence for this titulus to specifically be that of Christ's. Number one is the order of languages in which the mocking Roman inscription----which always was used to convey the charge against the criminal being executed----"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" is transcribed onto the titulus. Actually, since only a fragment of the headboard remains, this line should be modified to only state "Jesus of Nazareth". In the Bible, this order is written first in Hebrew, Greek, then Latin. This order on the Titulus of Santa Croce is one that violates the order in which the Bible documents the languages as appearing on the headboard. This permeates with credibility, because, had this order on the titulus been fabricated, no one would have crawled to producing such a glaringly bad imitation. Consequently, this can only mean one thing, that, were the Santa Croce Titulus really a fabrication, the professional forger would have been duped into copying the contraband order written in the Bible, because it was more accessible. Secondly, is the suspiciously eye-rasing direction in which the Hebrew inscription "Jesus of Nazareth" is written, which is from right to left. Once again, discounting fakes because of its horrid obviousness, Thiede believes this was inscribed by a Jewish scholar, as it was the traditional Hebrew writing style of the day, around the date of Christ's crucifixion. Thirdly, is the introduction of a specific style of abreviation on the Titulus of Santa Croce, one that died out from common use at the time after Christ's crucifixion, once more linking the headboard to the official one.

Furthermore, to prove that the titulus belonged to Christ, Thiede has to establish a definite connection between the crucifixion and that part of the cross actually coming to the Roman Empire in the 4th century, because said titulus is from Santa Croce, the church in Rome. According to legend, the titulus was recovered to Rome by Helena, Emperor Constantine's 80-year old mom. Constantine seized control of the whole Empire when he defeated his arch-nemesis, Emperor Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge. The Empire had, up to that point, been ostracized into 4 regions, each governed by 4 different Roman rulers. Constantine, allegedly, had a vision of the Cross in the clouds, before crossing the Milvian Bridge in the battle against Maxentius, which implored him to paint a Chi-rho symbol---the 1st version of Christianity's symbol---on all his men's shields. Constantine embezzled that Christianity had granted him his victory-----he then started to oppress Christianity as the official religion of the Empire. As another part of his ambivalent "conversion" of himself and the entire Empire to Christianity, he procured his mom to bring the relic to 3 parts of the Empire as a rallying point for early Christians to have something palpable to believe in.

What Thiede does is to try to produce legitimate connections to the titulus which was carried back by Helena and the actual titulus of Christ by citing logical coincidences of events that could only happen during the specific range of the time of Christ. For instance, nowadays, there exists the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, sitting over the place where Christ was crucified, and believed to have been the site of the titulus. In the catacombs beneath this church lie inscriptional records of early pilgrims' journeys to this site-one such from Crusaders, and another from seafarers who make a definite reference to a biblical psalm in giving thanks for their opportunity to worship at the site, believing it to be the licit place containing Christ's relics, and who wouldn't have risked catastrophic chances traveling across the sea to get there, were they not actually certain of its status. This verifies the already historical knowledge of the fact that, in the 1st few centuries of Christianity, there was NEVER any dispute over the actual holy sites. Additionally, there is evidence of Jews building tombs over this same area, even for the ones stigmatized as "criminals", as proven by the finding of a burial box containing a nail through the heel bone of a foot, and Jesus would have been libeled as a "criminal" by the Jews. Another tying of the Santa Croce Titulus to Christ's time is the fact that in the 1400s, it was discovered in Helena's "palace"-directly behind Santa Croce-hidden behind a fresco because Helena is supposed to have taken it, the 3rd fragment of the entire headboard, back with her after discovering the titulus at the previous site of, 1st, the temple to the Roman god Venus which was then promptly aborted for Constantine's building of a monumental complex to Christianity, all on the same site. Upon the uncovering of the titulus, again, in the 1400s, El Greco used it in a painting of his, further documenting its validity.

These may be circumstantial evidence, but they stimulate the next best thing towards solid proof of this titulus being that of Christ's: raising the question of a plausible feasibility that the Santa Croce Titulus could be that of Christ's.

A few of scraps of papyrus seemingly stand the world of New Testament scholarship on its head. The scraps are believed to be from the Gospel of Matthew. When they were discovered, they were dated to the time period 80-100 A.D. Thiede re-examines the scraps and finds them to date from around 60 A.D. Such a dating would mean that Matthew's Gospel most likely was written by an eyewitness. It would also mean that the four document hypothesis, that well-respected mainstay of Gospel scholarship, is dead wrong. Thiede tries manfully to explain how he came to the dating. In so doing, he must explain the arcane, esoteric, and almost impenetrable world of papyrology. It makes for slow, painful reading, and students who are not familiar with the science of the study of papyrus scraps will have to take much of what Thiede says on faith. Those of a conservative bent will readily embrace Thiede's findings; the more liberal Bible students will not. Whichever side you take, or even if you fall somewhere in the middle, you should find it worth your effort to read this book.

Not only does the book present convincing analysis, it prompts us to look for the re-evaluation of manuscript fragments in other collections using the techniques described so well by Thiede. The book really should receive more serious consideration from scholars. It's been sadly neglected. Thiede is obviously something of a radical, but Biblical scholarship needs men who are willing to explore completely new avenues, particularly when they are as skilled as Thiede is. The question of when and how the gospels were written is really wide open. We have a monumental heap of investigation and speculation proving very little or nothing. We need new approaches. Those who don't seek can't find. Anne Rice, New Orleans, La.

I am amazed that this book has not received more attention. The cynicism and skepticism of the Booklist reviewer seen above is evident.

This book provides more evidence that the gospels were written as eyewitness accounts. This is no surprise to evangelical scholars, but it is more vindication nonetheless.

The most amazing fact to me continues to be the lack of attention to this amazing find by the theological, cultural and media establishments. It should rightly turn Biblical scholarship on its head, but this age's disdain for truth in the face of comfortable old paradigns (e.g. holding to the theory of evolution despite mounting evidence that it is impossible in a thousand different ways) is exasperating!!

Thiede has generated some controversy (and some opponents) with his other publications on some early papyri, yet he is an excellent scholar and demonstrates some acute perceptions in this collection of 19 essays.

This 204 page paperback is apparently printed on cheap (non-acid-free, nor ANSI certified) paper. The 19 essays are presented as 19 separate essays, unfortunately no index is available. Each essay has a proper bibliography. Essay number 18 concerns the Qumran fragment 7Q5 which Thiede suggests is a New Testament fragment. Many of the other 7Q fragments are of the apocryphal text titled "I Enoch" per the excellent research done by E. Muro, G. W. Nebe, and E. Puech.

Other fine essays are "Shorthand Writing in the New Testament" and "Dating Ancient Manuscripts: Why We Need to Work Together" --these are rousingly good essays. Generally, Thiede tries to educate as well as illuminate. His essay "Papyrus Bodmer L..." is a an example of his teaching ability. Thiede holds that the earliest NT manuscripts were written in scroll format as opposed to a codex format. This is very plausible (though not popular today). I can easily see Tertius (Paul's amanuensis for Romans) writing Paul's dictation first on a scroll, (much easier to do than to try to organize quires in codex formats). Sometime later (circa A.D. 70 - 90) Paul's epistles were collected into a single codex format.

These essays make the reader think, they are stimulating and challenging. Both reactions are needed in this area of Biblical research -- (challenge and stimulation). These are meaty topics. I recommend this work, despite the fact that Thiede at times, does not fairly present all of the opposing evidences against his preferred views. Gary S. Dykes...

Thiede's book is a waste of time. It adds nothing new to the analysis of the origins of Christianity. The Dead Sea Sect and the Jesus Movement were two reactions to the Roman conquest of Ancient Israel, both dependent on Jewish roots, both sensing apocalypse. While there are similarities between the movements, the important fact is that one failed and was eliminated, while the other succeeded.