The membership of this blog is made up of evangelicals involved in academic study of textual criticism. Those with appropriate expertise and theological convictions who wish to be considered for membership should contact Peter Head or Tommy Wasserman. Those applying for membership must indicate that they have read either the OT or the NT in its original language(s), should be actively involved in text-critical research, and should be already contributing to the blog through comments. They should give e-mail details of an academic and a pastoral referee, a summary of their academic and/or ministry involvement, a statement of their doctrinal commitment (which may be by reference to various classic evangelical statements of faith, e.g. 39 Articles, Westminster Confession), and an indication of their area of interest within textual criticism. Non-members who wish to comment are not expected to be evangelical, but they are requested to respect the blog's ethos.
Posts
Comments
15 Comments:
I think that I have the text and papyrus figured out. Is the writing against the fibers?
If it is the papyrus which I am guessing, this is probably the codicological recto. I do not know what to do with the very last letter which appears to be a Mu. I want it to be an Epsilon.
So far this is what I have found:
It's from John 21.11ff. What led me to that was the phrase with the nomina sacra roughly in the middle: ΙΗΣ ΔΕΥΤΕ. A search for that gave two hits: Mk. 1.17; Jn. 21.12. However, what further pushed it to Jn., was the numerical abbrev. ΡΝΓ (153) found two lines above.
This is where my attention peaked. In comparing D, W,א, B only D used the actual number whereas the others use the longer ΕΚΑΤΟΝ ΠΕΝΤΗΚΟΝΤΑ ΤΡΙΩΝ.
According to the CNTTS Apparatus, D is the only witness to use the numerical abbreviation. It is also the only one that uses this form of the nomina sacra- ΙΗΣ (the fragment here only show part of the Η but it is also visible three lines down on the MSS which corresponds to vs. 13; cf., vs. 10 in D) . So my initial conclusion is that this is a new MSS fragment (based on these two occurrences, and their lack of attestation in the CNTTS) that matches the reading of D.
Easy, if you're referring to the bottom of the fragment. The scribe has the reading of W at Jn 21.14. So why isn't this fragment mentioned in NA27? Which fragment is it?
Sorry, Rick. You posted while I was researching it. Didn't see that. Nice work!
Jonathan, are you reading: Ἰησοῦς τοῖς μα]θηταῖς μ[
for the last line? That is what I have.
This is not parchment, so I think that we must rule out D.
No, I'm reading EFANERWQ]H TOIS M[AQHTAIS, but the second hand erases the TO to make IS, which all MSS have but W, but in so doing he eliminates the TOIS.
It is an interesting question whether line 11 reflects a deliberate erasure of TO to recover 'Jesus', or whether it reflects some damage to the papyrus. If it were a deliberate erasure I would expect a (secondary) bar over the IC. Lacking that I think I'd go for damage rather than deliberate erasure.
Rick read line 5 as:
IHS DEUTE
But the final letter sure looks like an alpha to me.
Good catch on the number by the way Rick.
Thanks for the analysis, Peter. I'm learning a lot. Clicking on the larger picture this time (smile), it does appear the discoloration continues up the fragment. This is a great little blog. I'm glad you all set it up.
Peter, I think it should read DEYTE but the ms. has a scribal "blib".
line 4 has ΣΧΙΣΘΗΤ, which matches ε]σχιθη τ[ο in Jn 21,11.
line 5 has ΙΣ before your "blibed" DEYTE, which matches Jn 21,12 (see how I created a new word for English language :))
Could it be a misspelling like DEYTAI? E<>AI?
I estimate the line length is approx. 27-28 characters. (?)
Interesting thing about that nomen sacrum like in D.
Then nomen sacrum should'nt be surprising. The IHC form is found in the many early (2nd and 3rd c.) mss of John (P5, P22, P39, (P75 twice) P90, P106, P108, 0162), as well as in other NT mss, only some of which have marked affinities with D.
Actually, now that I have learned that the editor dates the fragment to 4 or 5 c., I have to take back what I just said! If he is correct, the IHC form would be somewhat more remarkable. The short contracted form IC, etc., seems to have become all but standard from the 4th c on, except in Latin mss and Latin/Greek bilinguals like D, where the long contracted form IHC dominates.
Post a Comment