Some
Recently Published NT Papyri from Oxyrhynchus:
An Overview and Preliminary Assessment
Published in Tyndale Bulletin 51 (2000), pp. 1-16
(reprinted here with minor alterations)
Peter M. Head
This article uses SPIonic Greek Font (© James R. Adair, 2000); to download: SP Fonts
Summary
Seventeen newly published manuscripts of the Greek New Testament (comprising a new portion of P77 as well as P100-P115) are introduced and then discussed individually, with special attention to two groups of manuscripts: seven of Matthew and four of John. The material offers important new evidence on a range of text-critical issues and three passages are discussed (Mt. 23:38; Jn. 1:34; Rev. 13:18).
I. Introduction
Within the last
three years seventeen previously unknown papyrus manuscripts of portions of the
New Testament have been published in volumes 64, 65 and 66 of The Oxyrhynchus
Papyri.[1] The seventeen
manuscripts, mostly fairly small fragments, comprise seven early manuscripts of
Matthew, four of John’s Gospel, and one each of Luke, Acts, Romans, Hebrews,
James and Revelation. Only the last two (James and Revelation) could be
described as anything other than fragmentary. Nevertheless, as I hope we shall
see, taken together they form an important new (although not revolutionary)
resource for NT textual criticism. The purpose of this article is to offer an
overview of the content of this newly published material, to discuss three
examples where this material impacts upon debated text-critical issues, and to
offer some preliminary discussion concerning what light these fragments might
shed on the early history of the New Testament text, and the texts of Matthew
and John in particular.[2]
It is noteworthy that the supply of
early New Testament papyrus manuscripts has been steadily but quietly
increasing over recent decades. Although no substantial individual manuscript
finds have been published since the sixties, the steady progress is apparent in
developments between, for example, the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh editions
of the Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum
Graece. When the twenty-sixth edition was published in 1979 it listed the
papyri whose evidence was cited as extending to P88. The
twenty-seventh edition, published in 1993, took the list up to P98.[3] This increase of
eleven manuscripts in something over a decade was already notable, with
additional second-century finds and a range of other material adding to our
knowledge of the transmission of the NT text in the early period. With the seventeen
newly published fragments under review here, the situation has changed once
more, with the official list of NT papyri now extending through to P115.
It is impossible to predict how long
this process of accumulation will continue, but there is no reason to think
that the flow will stop with the turn of the millennium. Excavations continue
and finds in the field are still being made. A recent example would be the
Dakleh Oasis finds at Kellis, which consist of over 2,000 texts on a variety of
material, mainly from fourth century. In this case, despite the presence of
numerous Christian texts (including an LXX Psalms text and portions of the NT
in Coptic), no portions of the Greek NT have been identified.[4] Another likely
source for more NT manuscripts is the pool of papyrus manuscripts which remain
unidentified, or possibly forgotten, in European libraries. For example it was
recently reported in some newspapers and subsequently on the internet, that a
manuscript of Hebrews, a small fragment from the sixth century containing
2:9-11 and 3:3-6, had been identified among the Greek papyri in the National
Library in Vienna (P.Vindob. G 42417).[5] There seems to
be a distinct possibility that more NT material might emerge from the
Oxyrhynchus archives. Another possible resource consists of previously
published material which can turn out to be more interesting than was once
suspected. For example, quite recently a text that was published as an
unidentified list of objects turned out, with the help of computer analysis, to
be a fragment of Revelation 1:13-20 (now identified as P98).[6]
II. The Manuscripts
All of the
manuscripts under consideration here come from a single, known location in
Egypt, Oxyrhynchus, capital of the local region or nome (modern Behnasa, around
120 miles south of Cairo). They were recovered by Bernard P. Grenfell and
Arthur S. Hunt in a series of expeditions from 1896/97 and 1903 through to
1907. These two young Oxford men formed, in the words of Eric Turner, ‘a
partnership more lasting and at least as productive as that of Gilbert and
Sullivan’.[7] At times they
were recovering up to thirty baskets of manuscripts each day from the rubbish
pits into which old and no longer useful manuscripts had been thrown. They
excavated at times to a depth of 8 metres and at the end of the first season
sent 280 boxes of manuscripts back to Oxford. Alongside a wealth of documentary
and classical literary texts, these excavations (which were followed by a
series of Italian excavations in 1910-1913, under E. Pistelli and G. Farina and
later in 1927-34 under E. Breccia) recovered a wide range of early Christian
literature (including other early Christian material from the Apostolic
Fathers, non-canonical gospels, etc.). Indeed, Grenfell recorded that it was
Oxyrhynchus’ renown as an important Christian site, with a number of churches
and thousands of monks in the fourth and fifth centuries, that in part at
least, motivated the original search.[8] The manuscripts
themselves provide evidence of a growing number of churches (from two in the
third century, up to around forty in the sixth centuries) and, in a later
period, thousands of monks.[9]
As regards the New Testament we should
note that Oxyrhynchus is the
principal supplier of NT papyri. If we limit ourselves to those manuscripts
definitely from Oxyrhynchus (that is, all those published in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri volumes and a number
published in the Italian series, Papiri
greci e latini, whose provenance is specifically identified),[10] we note, in
addition to those listed above, that the following would be included:
P1 (P. Oxy 2), P5 (P. Oxy 208, 1781), P9 (P. Oxy 402),
P10 (P. Oxy 209), P13 (P. Oxy 657 & PSI 1292), P15 (P. Oxy 1008),
P16 (P. Oxy 1009), P17 (P. Oxy 1078), P18 (P. Oxy 1079),
P19 (P. Oxy 1170), P20 (P. Oxy 1171), P21 (P. Oxy 1227),
P22 (P. Oxy 1228), P23 (P. Oxy 1229), P24 (P. Oxy 1230),
P26 (P. Oxy 1354), P27 (P. Oxy 1355), P28 (P. Oxy 1596),
P29 (P. Oxy 1597), P30 (P. Oxy 1598), P35 (PSI 1),
P36
(PSI 3), P39
(P. Oxy 1780), P48 (PSI 1165),
P51 (P. Oxy 2157), P69 (P. Oxy 2383),
P70 (P. Oxy 2384 & PSI inv. CNR 419f.), P71 (P. Oxy 2385),
P77 (P. Oxy 2683), P78 (P. Oxy 2684), P90 (P. Oxy 3523).
To these
manuscripts we can now add the following:
|
Gregory /Aland Number |
P. Oxy |
NT Passage |
Date (acc. to editor) |
Size (cm) |
Lines per Page |
Nomina Sacra |
Other Features |
|
P77 (new portion) |
4405 |
Mt. 23:30-34;
35-39 |
II/III |
8 x 8.2 |
c. 20 |
None extant |
Rough breathings Medial points Paragraph
divisions Correction |
|
P100 |
4449 |
Jas. 3:13-4:4;
4:9-5:1 |
III/IV |
7.5 x 19 |
c. 36 |
KU, KS |
Pagination Diaresis Final nu = bar Punctuation by
extended space |
|
P101 |
4401 |
Mt. 3:10-12;
3:16-4:3 |
III |
4.7 x 8.6 |
c. 32-33 |
PNI,
PN[S], US NB. Ouranoj |
m = forty (Mt.
4:2) |
|
P102 |
4402 |
Mt. 4:11-12,
22-23 |
III/IV |
5 x 3.3 |
c. 35 |
None extant |
Punctuation by
medial point |
|
P103 |
4403 |
Mt. 13:55-56;
14:3-5 |
II/III |
5.8 x 4 |
c. 19-20 |
None extant |
Medial points correction |
|
P104 |
4404 |
Mt. 21:34-37; 43
& 45 (?) |
II (late) |
7 x 5.2 |
c. 31 |
None extant |
Rough breathings |
|
P105 |
4406 |
Mt. 27:62-64;
28:1-5 |
V/VI |
3.2 x 5.5 |
c. 25 |
None extant |
amulet |
|
P106 |
4445 |
Jn. 1:29-35,
40-46 |
III |
8.8 x 13 |
c. 36 |
PNA, PNI, XRS, IHS,
IHN NB. isra]hl ouranou uio[n |
Pagination Apostrophe |
|
P107 |
4446 |
Jn. 17:1-2, 11 |
III |
4.4 x 4.4 |
c. 33 |
None extant |
Rough breathing
(?) |
|
P108 |
4447 |
Jn. 17:23-24;
18:1-5 |
III |
6.2 x 10.5 |
c. 23 |
IHS,
IHN |
|
|
P109 |
4448 |
Jn. 21:18-20,
23-25 |
III |
4.1 x 7.9 |
c. 26 |
None extant |
|
|
P110 |
4494 |
Mt. 10:13f.,
25-27 |
IV |
7 x 3.8 |
c. 40-43 |
KS |
Rough breathings Punctuation by
low points Apostrophes Final nu = bar |
|
P111 |
4495 |
Lk. 17:11-13,
22f. |
III |
2.9 x 4.8 |
c. 21-22 |
IHU |
|
|
P112 |
4496 |
Acts 26:31f.;
27:6f |
V |
5.2 x 5.2 |
c. 34 |
ANOS |
stop |
|
P113 |
4497 |
Rom. 2:12f., 29 |
III |
2.7 x 2.4 |
c. 35 two col.s |
PNI |
Rough breathings High stops |
|
P114 |
4498 |
Heb. 1:7-12 |
III |
3.8 x 7.1 |
c. 27 |
QS |
verso blank |
|
P115 |
4499 |
Rev. 2-15[11] |
III/IV |
26 frags from
nine leaves |
c. 33-36 |
IHL,
QU,
QN, ANWN, ANOU,
PNA,
KU,
OUNOU,
OUNW |
Punctuation by
high point or blank space Final nu = bar |
The total number
of NT manuscripts on papyrus found at Oxyrhynchus is therefore forty-seven.
This is a significant proportion of the total of perhaps 111 separate
manuscripts, most of which are completely without provenance. The proportion is
even more telling for those manuscripts dated to the early part of the fourth
century or earlier (i.e. those given as III/IV or earlier in our list), in
which Oxyrhynchus accounts for thirty-four out of a total of fifty-eight. The
down-side is that all the material from Oxyrhynchus is very fragmentary. Only a
few provide substantial material (e.g. P13 covers several chapters
of Hebrews in a fairly well preserved state; P115 covers a lot of
the Apocalypse in a fragmentary state). Epp refers to only three others which
provide more than two dozen verses (P5, P15, P27)
and the longest of the new fragments is P100 (James), which attests
around 20 verses.[12] Doubtless this
explains the relative lack of attention given to Oxyrhynchus in particular
among textual critics. Nevertheless the breadth of material, our growing
knowledge of the town itself, and its church life, make this material a vital
resource. As regards scope we simply note that the Oxyrhynchus collection
comprises portions of Matthew (13 copies), Luke (2 copies), John (10 copies),
Acts (3 copies), Romans (4 copies), 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1-2
Thessalonians, Hebrews (3 copies), James (3 copies), 1 John, Jude, and
Revelation (3 copies).[13]
III.
The Matthew Fragments
The seven new
manuscripts of Matthew from Oxyrhynchus provide an important collection of
early fragments of the Gospel. They take to 24 the number of papyrus
manuscripts of Matthew which are extant,[14] seven of which
(four from Oxyrhynchus) are distinctly early—‘not later than the mid third
century’—P1, 45, 53, 64+67, 77, 103, 104.[15]
P.
Oxy 4405 is a small piece which fits neatly into the previously published P. Oxy 2683 and which together now
comprise P77 (Mt. 23:30-34, 35-39). This papyrus codex would have
had around 20 lines of text per page (perhaps 10 x 15 cm including margins).
The manuscript has been dated to the later part of the second century (or
possibly early third). The scribe used a number of middle points for
punctuation, more notably he twice used paragraphus, a horizontal line between
lines of writing (these relate to verse divisions at the beginning of v. 32 and
v. 34), and signalled a paragraph division (between v. 36 and v. 37) by leaving
the end of the line blank.[16] Other features
include the use of rough breathings, and the use of double dots (trema,
indicating initial vowels). He twice made corrections to his text (once
over-writing an ei into an eta
in h]qelhka, and at another point,
realising that he has missed a word, writes a superscript kai (end of v. 37).
In text the manuscript is close to Sinaiticus, and therefore to our modern
critical editions, variations reflect idiosyncratic spellings (e.g. in v. 37: apoktin[nousa,
hqelhka)
and/or the influence of the parallel passage in Luke 13:34, evident in epeisuna[x]ai and ornic, both in 23:37.
An interesting variant which is
illustrative of the complexities of some text-critical problems, and in which
this manuscript plays an important role, is found in Matthew 23:38. In NA27 P77vid
is cited in support of erhmoj. Since this is the earliest
Greek evidence its presence in P77 has been important in discussions
of this problem.[17] Since Luke most
probably lacks erhmoj, it has been felt that the omission of this
word in texts of Matthew might be due to harmonisation with Luke, while its
presence, with its OT echoes (e.g. Je. 22:5) would be characteristic of
Matthew. In fact P77 does not read erhmoj at all, except
for what the original editors thought was a part of a sigma at the edge of the
old fragment. The announcement of a new piece of the same page held out the
prospect of further clarity on this subject, but unfortunately it remains lost
between the two fragments. Close examination of the papyrus casts doubt on
whether the extant ink is really part of a sigma at all (as to read it as a
sigma creates another problem that requires a unique variant to be postulated
in the intervening space). It seems more likely that P77 should be
read as a witness for the shorter reading here, which while not itself decisive,
is an important contribution to an interesting, although comparatively minor
problem.
P101 (P. Oxy 4401) is a third century fragment of a papyrus codex
(containing Mt. 3:10-12; 3:16-4.3) which would have had around 32-33 lines per
page. Although no margins are extant the codex would appear to have had pages
of around 10 x 25 cm. Nomina sacra are extant here for pneuma and uioj (PNI, PN[S], US), and ‘forty’ (tesserakonta) is represented
by the letter m (with bar). The only other feature is the use of
tremata (only with initial upsilon), no punctuation is present.
The fragmentary state of the text makes
reconstruction difficult, but it does seem to have some interesting individual
features. There seems to be a singular preposition change from eij to pr]oj
pur
(3:10); wj is read instead of wsei at 3:16 (without
apparently supporting the longer reading of D); hudok[hsa in 3:17; unusual
word order for nhsteusa]~ (tesserakonta) hmeraj in 4:2. This manuscript
also provides an early Greek witness to a variant previously attested only in
the versions and Fathers. The omission at 3:11 of opisw
mou
(with a d samss and Cyprian), results in John the Baptist affirming that ‘the coming
one (rather than ‘the one who is coming after me’) is stronger than me’. This
is interesting, and could be regarded as a smoother (non-harmonised) reading.
On the other hand it may reflect a feeling that o(
e0rco&menoj should be a technical title.
P102 (P. Oxy 4402) is a tiny fragment
(containing portions of Mt. 4:11f., 22f.) from the bottom corner of a papyrus
codex which would have had around 35 lines to the page and leaves around 14 x
27 cm. The hand has been dated to the third or early fourth century. There is a
punctuation point at the break between 3:11 and 3:12 (which also corresponds to
a new Eusebian section [from 18 to 19]). There are no notable variations from
any standard comparative texts.
P103 (P. Oxy 4403) preserves the top corner of a leaf (with a top margin
of more then 1 cm and a side margin of more than 1.5 cm) of a papyrus codex of
around 19-20 lines per page (giving a page size of around 11 x 16 cm). The text
contains portions of Matthew 13:55f. and 14:3-5 and is dated to the late second
or early third century. The size, date, style and content match P77
and it has been suggested that this is from the same manuscript, although some
distinctive features prevent this from being at all certain. The scribe has
used punctuation points (only one of the four corresponds to a modern verse
division). A supralinear correction has been made, probably by a second hand,
at one point (probably, as Thomas suggests, this corrected the omission of eisin). This
manuscript offers the earliest witness in support of the interesting variant
which gives the name of one of Jesus’ brothers as Iwshj (rather than Iwshf) (Mt. 13:55).
P104 (P. Oxy 4404) is probably the earliest text of all those covered in
this article, assigned by Thomas ‘with some confidence to the second half of
the second century, while not wishing to exclude altogether a slightly earlier
or a slightly later date’. The text contains the top of a page of a papyrus
codex of around 31 lines per page, and therefore a page size of around 14 x 25
cm (attesting Mt. 21:34-37 and v. 43 & v. 45). The scribe uses rough
breathings, but no other lectional feature or punctuation is found. The text on
the back of the fragment (writing across the fibres) has been severely damaged
(with only one letter identifiable beyond doubt). As reconstructed by the
editor this side attests a text lacking Matthew 21:44 (with D 33 and versional
and patristic support).[18]
P105 (P. Oxy 4406) is the latest of the Matthew texts here under review,
dated to the fifth or sixth century by the editor (and containing portions of
Mt. 27:62-64; 27:2-5).[19] Originally part
of a papyrus codex with around 25 lines per page (around 12 x 22 cm), this
piece has apparently been used as an amulet (in the edition a piece of string
is said to be ‘still attached’; although this is no longer the case, as is
apparent from the plates). The text contains some itacistic spellings: ceiw[n (28.3); esisq[hsan (28:4); and a
singularly additional definite article: ton pei[laton (27.62).
P110 (P. Oxy 4494) is a small piece of a papyrus codex upon which
evidence for seven lines of text and a side margin survive (Mt. 10:13-14,
25-27). Calculations by the editor suggest that the codex would have had a page
size of around 12 x 22 cm. The fragment is dated to the fourth century,
comparative material and the discussion by Cockle strongly suggest the first
half of the fourth century.
This text manages to combine indications
of literary care with apparent textual freedom. It is characterised by a fairly
full repertoire of literary features: rough breathings, apostrophes (between
consonants and after ouk), dots to indicate
punctuation (four out of five correspond to modern verse divisions), double
dots (tremata, here indicating initial vowels). Three different corrections
have also been made to the text, all of which correct what would have been
singular readings.[20] This manuscript
is also a good example of the alternating of dark and then fainter lettering
which suggests places where the pen has been re-inked. A number of readings
suggest either a careless scribe, or an idiosyncratic exemplar, since this
short text contains six further singular readings.[21]
These seven texts illustrate the
popularity of Matthew at Oxyrhynchus (in this respect cohering with the extant
manuscripts but also from patristic citations and the traditional ordering of
the gospels). They also illustrate various points along the spectrum from the
apparently controlled texts (with corrections, literary features etc.) to
apparently more free or careless copying.
IV. The John Fragments
P106 (P. Oxy 4445) is the top portion of a
single leaf from a codex of John from the first half of the third century
containing the text of Jn. 1:29-35, 40-46. The text has an average of around 25
letters per line and calculations suggest 36 lines to the page; since this leaf
is the second of the gospel (page numbers 3 and 4 are given in the upper
margin) it can be deduced that John’s Gospel would have taken up around seventy
pages, and would most likely have been alone. The fragment is both stained and
damaged in various places, making it rather difficult to read.
Several interesting readings, for which
P106 now offers the earliest extant witness, are shared with
important later Alexandrian witnesses: at 1:31 the word order egw
hlqon
(shared with C* and some others); at 1:32 the omission of the participle legwn (shared with a*) and at 1:34
the reading o( e0klekto/j (which we shall discuss in
a moment). A number of singular readings are also evident: at 1:33 this
manuscript reads ean in place of an (a singular
substitution); at 1:40 the most likely reconstruction suggests that hkolouqhsan was read rather
than the participle hkolouqhsantwn; in 1:41 outoj is omitted (this
omission of a potentially redundant term is paralleled in a single Old Latin text);
and in 1:42 the article ton is also omitted.
The most interesting of these variants
is the support that P106 clearly gives to the reading o9
e0klekto/v at John 1:34 (the witness of John the Baptist).[22] The vast
majority of the manuscripts, as well as the early papyri P66 and P75,
read o9 ui0o/v.[23] P106
offers early support for a reading found later in the original of Sinaiticus,
later minuscules (77 218), Old Latin manuscripts (b e ff 2*), and the Old
Syriac (syrs&c), alongside further versional witnesses
supporting a conflate version electus
filius. This early support in Greek, Latin and Syriac indicates a
geographical diversity behind this reading.[24]
If we consider the transcriptional
probabilities it seems far easier to envisage a scribal tendency from o9
e0klekto/v to o9
ui0o/v (in conformity to the style
and theology of the Fourth Gospel) than vice versa. o9
e0klekto/v is a perfectly acceptable reading, incidentally quite coherent for
John the Baptist, pointing to the messianic status of Jesus (cf. Lk. 23:35; Is.
42:1LXX, etc.);[25] and one that
might well be smoothed over and filled out theologically be a scribe concerned
that John the Baptist, the ideal witness in the Fourth Gospel, should also
confess Jesus as Son of God (cf. Jn. 20:30f.).[26]
P107 (P. Oxy 4446) is a small fragment from a codex page, containing John
17:1f., 11; it has been ascribed to the third century. The text has an average
of around 23 letters per line and would probably have had 33 lines to the page.
This manuscript also contains a number of noteworthy readings which provide an
early witness to support minority readings in the uncials. At 17:1 P107 reads dwv
autw
(with W L); at 17:11 it appears to parallel the longer reading of D (ouketi
eimi en tw kosmw kai en tw kosmw eimi); and in the final clause at 17:11 it reads kai
hmei" (with B and others).[27]
P108 (P. Oxy 4447) consists of two adjoining fragments providing evidence
for the bottom half of a codex page. The text, dated to the third century,
contains John 17:23f., 18:1-5 and was written at around 24 letters to the line
and 23 lines to the page. This manuscript also provides early support for a
number of variant readings, e.g. at 17:24: ed[wkav with B K N;
18:3: kai farisaiwn with a* A C W; 18:4:
de
with 01 D W F1; eipe]n with a A C.[28]
P109 (P. Oxy 4448) is a small fragment from a codex page of around 19
letters per line and 26 lines per page, containing John 21:18-20, 23-25. The
hand is said to resemble that of P66 and has been assigned to the third
century, making this manuscript the earliest manuscript witness to John 21.
These early fragments help to confirm
the popularity of John at Oxyrhynchus. Although fragmentary, they expand our
knowledge of the text of John in this early period. In general the text they
exhibit stands in agreement with the Alexandrian (or proto-Alexandrian) text of
the papyri and major Uncials, without agreeing in detail with any particular
manuscript.
V. The Other Fragments
The manuscript of
James (P100 = P. Oxy 4449)
consists of the upper two-thirds of a single codex leaf including the upper
margin, with pagination, and 25 extant lines of text. The portion covered is
James 3:13 (…] kalhv) - 4:4 (…filo[v) and 4:9 (…]
eiv penqov) - 5:1 (…age nun]| o[i). The editor, R.
Hübner, suggests a third or fourth century date. Some peculiarities suggest a
somewhat careless scribe, for example, writing the unattested nonsense word akastasia for akatastasia
at
3:16, non for nomon at 4:11, and the
combination of itacism and etacism evident in the spelling of numerous words.[29] A longer space
signals a basic form of punctuation (of the ten obvious examples only four
correspond to the modern verse divisions in NA27, four of the others are
readily explicable, two others are harder to fathom).[30]
The text has an average of around 30
letters per line, and 36 lines per page. Of considerable interest are the page
numbers in the upper margin: V (digamma) = 6 and Z = 7. Clearly this caters
for a codex manuscript which began with James. But was it a small codex of
James alone or did James head up a collection of the Catholic epistles? The
epistle alone would have gone onto the ninth page and made a small quire. If it
was felt that pagination would hardly be required for a single letter volume we
might be led to speculate that this could have been a larger codex.[31] A codex on this
scale containing all seven letters would have extended to approximately forty
pages.[32]
The text of P100 was utilised
in the first fascicle of the new Editio
Critica Maior produced by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research
in Münster.[33] No clear picture
emerges about the text-type represented by this manuscript: at 3:17 it reads kai (before anupokritov) with
predominantly Byzantine texts (K L 049 69 322 323 Maj.); similarly at 4:10 it
reads tou kuriou with a range of Byzantine texts (NA 27: Maj.);
while at other points it stands with ‘Alexandrian’ witnesses against the
variant that became the standard Byzantine reading (e.g. 4:9: metatraph[tw with B P 614
1241 1739 etc.; 4:13: poihsomen with B P 323
1739 etc.).[34]
Perhaps the most important and
substantial of the manuscripts under discussion here are the twenty-six
fragments which make up P. Oxy 4499
(P115). Although fragmentary, they provide evidence for substantial
portions of the book of Revelation (a portion of the NT which is otherwise
comparatively poorly attested). The fragments come from nine different leaves
and allow a general impression of the whole to be gained. The lines contain
between 29/30 and 43/44 letters, each page would require around 33-36 lines,
and the size of each page would be c. 15.5 x 23.5 cm. Punctuation is by high
point (most of which correspond to modern verse divisions), and the text has
been corrected by the scribe and by a later corrector (who may have corrected
the text against another manuscript).
The textual history of the Apocalypse is
unique among New Testament documents and is comparatively well understood
because of the relative paucity of manuscripts, and the very full studies of H.C.
Hoskier and J. Schmid.[35] Four main
text-types have been discerned; and first impressions suggest that this
manuscript belongs to one of the most important of these, the Alexandrinus (A)
and Ephraimi Rescriptus (C) group.[36]
Of some interest is the early support
given by this manuscript to the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18) being 616
(here given in alpha-numeric form as XIV [with bar], the
other early witness C has it written in full: ecakosiai
deka ec).[37] Manuscripts
bearing this reading were known to Irenaeus. He affirmed that 666 stood ‘in all
the most approved and ancient copies’ (e0n
pa=si toi=v spoudai/oiv kai\ a0rxai/oiv a0ntigra/foiv, Against Heresies V.30.1), and argued that 616 arose as a scribal
error. The reading of P115 does not actually add much to the
available evidence, except to confirm one side of Irenaeus’ account, and to add
some early weight to the 616 reading. Recent studies suggest that there may not
be any significant exegetical difference between 616 and 666. The consensus is
firmly in favour of viewing this number as an example of gematria, in which the number stands for the name of a person (‘the
number of his name’, Rev. 13:17; 15:2), and the person in mind would be Nero. It
is likely that 666 arose from a Hebrew transliteration of Neron Caesar from
Greek into Hebrew (rsq Nwrn).[38]
It is notable that an equivalent transliteration from Latin into Hebrew results
in 616 (rsq wrn). We might also note that two possible
transliterations of ‘beast’ into Hebrew could produce either 616 or 666.[39]
P111 (P. Oxy 4495) is a fragment from a papyrus codex of Luke’s Gospel
(Lk. 17:11-13, 22f.) from the first half of the third century. No breathings or
punctuation are evident. Two readings are notable, the singular spelling of porwq[en (17:12); and tou
ep[iqumhsai
umav
(17:22) which provides the earliest support for a reading shared with D f13
157 OLmss, otherwise the text seems to agree with P75 and
the early uncials.
P112 (P. Oxy 4496) is a fragment of a papyrus codex of the Acts of the
Apostles (Acts 26:31f.; 27:6f.) written in typical Biblical Majuscule of the
fifth century. If this was a single column codex it would require 34 lines per
page (of around 20 letters per line), 160 pages (of c. 18 x 31 cm) for Acts.
This manuscript, although later than most of the others under consideration
here, nevertheless also provides the earliest evidence for two variants that
were otherwise known only in minuscule witnesses (both a long omission at 26:32
and a subsequent addition).
P113 (P. Oxy 4497) is a tiny fragment of Romans (2:12f., 29) dated to the
third century. It has a narrow column structure which means it probably had two
columns with c. 35 lines each. No variants are evident.
P114 (P. Oxy 4498) is a section from the bottom of the first page of a
codex of Hebrews (the other side is blank, suggesting it contained the title),
containing Hebrews 1:7-12. The only notable variant is at Hebrews 1:9 where a
definite word order variation (sou o9 qeo/v) coincides with
a line that would otherwise appear too long.
VI. Conclusions
These new
fragments serve to confirm the popularity of the codex format in early
Christian book production (all seventeen of these fragments come from codices).
They contribute to our knowledge of Christian use of the codex, although they
do not help us to discern the rationale behind the widespread, almost
universal, adoption of this format in early Christian transmission of the
scriptures.
These fragments, and the Oxyrhynchus NT
manuscripts generally, confirm the outstanding popularity of Matthew, and to a
slightly lesser degree John, in the early period. The absence of any
manuscripts of Mark and the relative lack of manuscripts of Luke, suggest that,
whatever function the four-fold gospel canon may have had (if any), it did not
translate into four-gospel manuscripts in general, nor into equal numbers of
copies of manuscripts of each of the four gospels.[40]
In general terms these manuscripts
confirm the text of the great uncials which forms the basis of the modern
critical editions. There is nothing here which requires a radically new
understanding of the early transmission of the NT text. We have seen evidence
for attempts at control over the transmission process, with careful copying and
correcting. We have also seen examples of carelessness and apparent freedom
(interestingly the clearest examples of this comes from one of the later
manuscripts, the fourth century P110).
These manuscripts regularly provide
early Greek manuscript evidence for variant readings previously known only in
later manuscripts and the versions. This suggests that variant readings could
be maintained for long periods in the textual transmission even when evidence is
lacking; it further suggests that readings which lack early Greek support, but
which are found in the versions and later Greek manuscripts may well be based
on ancient traditions.