P.Oxy. 5258 and 5259 are now P132 and P133. They contain text from Eph 3.21; 4.2, 14-16 and 1 Tim 3.13-4.8 and date to III/IV and III centuries, respectively. The editio princeps for each has been published by Geoffrey Smith and J. Shao and
is online here.
P133 is now the earliest copy of 1 Timothy. Aside from this, there are some interesting things about P133.
In one case 5259 [P133] agrees with two MSS against the majority of witnesses (see ↓ 2 n.; see also ↓ 27 n.). In another it presents an elision occurring in only two other MSS against the majority of witnesses (see ↓ 5). Additional variants can only be inferred from the size of the lacunae. Notably, 5259 contains a previously unattested form of a nomen sacrum (see ↓ 22 n.).
I don’t have images for P133, but here is P132 courtesy of Smith. He also
says his edition of P134 should be out in the next few months (on which,
see Tommy’s post here).
 |
| P132, recto |
 |
| P132, verso |
While we’re on the topic of papyri, I know there are good reasons for moving away from “recto” and “verso,” but can we not do better than using left and right arrows to refer to the respective sides? These sigla face the same
problems as Gothic letters, don’t they?
Hmm the 2 manuscripts in question for lines 2 and 27 are Codex Boernerianus (Gp, 012) and Codex Augiensis (Fp, 010). There are also other agreements with G and F against Codex Claromontanus (Dp, 06). Given the very close relationship between these latin/greek diglots, it may be worth checking if these are just random permutations or if there is a genetic relationship between this manuscript and the common ancestor of F and G. If so it may be worth redoing the reconstruction with F and G in mind.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, "recto" means codicological recto, likewise verso. We know which came first because the content is known. There is no real reason to use the fiber direction instead of recto / verso, except in a discussion of the layout of the codex. Turner's injunction against pap. recto / verso should be taken as applying to documents, book rolls, or fragmentary literature where we cannot tell which side preceeded the other.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for this, Peter. I am preparing a review of this Oxyrhynchus volume for The Classical Review and P133 particularly caught my attention. Brice C. Jones has posted the transcription from the ed.pr. for P133 (and P132): https://www.bricecjones.com/blog/two-new-greek-new-testament-papyri-from-oxyrhynchus. Also, there is some backstory: http://ncunortherner.com/2014/04/two-students-professor-awarded-trip-oxford-study-ancient-greek-manuscripts/.
ReplyDeleteI know it's been years since you commented, any chance you know where to find p133 now? That other link no longer exists
Deletehttps://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/liste?docID=10133. Jessica Shao's editio princeps of P133 was published in P.Oxy. LXXXI.
Delete