Solving a Puzzle in P136

The following is a blog post I first wrote while on sabbatical in 2022 in Wake Forest. While there, I spent a nice afternoon with Libbie Schrader Polczer at the wonderful David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library examining their Greek NT manuscripts. One of those is P136.

---

This last week I had the good fortune of getting to spend some time with Duke University’s sole NT papyrus, P. Duke Inv. 1377 (P136). The GA number is your tipoff that this is a recently published papyrus. Andrew and Valerie Smith published the editio princeps only in 2018. It’s so recent that it didn’t make it into the ECM Acts. (As an aside, one of the great things about textual criticism is that we regularly get new material to work with like this.)

It’s a sixth century fragment of Acts and it has some surprising features. The script is the first surprise. This is not your typical six-century majuscule. The Smiths identify it as chancery style and it does fit Kenyon’s description of 6th/7th century non-literary style for Byzantine papyri (Paleography of Greek Papyri, pp. 49-51). 

The more surprising feature is that P136 has text on both sides but is not a codex. The writing is upside down on the recto relative to the verso. The Smiths suggest it is most likely a scroll, written in rotulus format (meaning the text flows vertically rather than horizontally). This format apparently saw a resurgence of use in the sixth century. If this is the right format, the Smiths’ reconstruction would allow for Acts 1:1-13:43 in the original scroll. That’s a little less than half the book (based roughly on the pages in my NA27). 

One last feature that surprised me: it’s big. Bigger than I expected, at least. It would have been a good-size scroll. Here is Libbie holding it up to show the size.

All that is by way of introduction. My real interest here is in a curious reading in P136. I was tipped off by the Duke website which says, 

Text varies from Nestle-Aland 28th edition Novum Testamentum Graecum in 3 locations, most significantly at 3v (Acts 4:28), which reads η χειρ σου και η δουλη instead of η χειρ σου και η βουλη σου.

That lack of σου is not surprising. It’s missing in over a dozen witnesses according to the ECM, including 02* and 03. What is odd is δουλη for βουλη. It’s only a difference of one letter, and the word δουλοι does occur in the next line. But the result has Peter and John claiming that those who conspired to kill Jesus did “whatever your [God’s] hand and your (female) servant had predestined to take place.” That’s definitely odd. 

The letter in question on line 3 of the ↑ side

To be sure, the letter certainly did look to me like a delta not a beta. Then again, I had no prior experience with this script. I do, however, have enough general experience reading Greek manuscripts to know that two letters that look the same at first may well turn out to be different entirely. To add to my suspicion, I checked the NT.VMR transcription and it has βουλη instead of δουλη. (I do not know the source of this transcription.)

So, is this a delta or a beta? Unfortunately, there are no other betas in P136, but there are multiple deltas. And what we can see is that in each case, the final stroke ends down and does not connect with the next letter. This distinction may seem slight, but it is typical of how letters are distinguished in cursive scripts like minuscule. I’m not too surprised to see it here. It’s a subtle difference to us, but they must have recognized it easily enough.

Deltas (orange dot) vs. beta (blue dot).

We can confirm our suspicion by looking at comparanda. The Smiths point to P. Geneva 210 as “remarkably similar” to P136 and we can see why. The hand is very similar. Lucky for us, it has plenty of both betas and deltas and, sure enough, we find the same distinction between them.

P. Geneva 210 showing deltas (orange dot) and betas (blue dot). Image source

Again, the distinguishing mark is that deltas end on a down stroke whereas betas don’t. Instead, they connect in some way with the next letter.

One more example. P. Berol. 7027 is written in a decidedly more elaborate hand than our previous examples. It’s much harder to read to my eyes and so I haven’t highlighted all the examples I could. Here, the beta is not quite the same as P136 or P. Geneva 210. Instead, it looks much more like the form of we find in later minuscule (it looks like a u to me). The key distinction is still the same, however. The delta ends on a down stroke and the beta does not.

P. Berol. 7027 showing deltas (orange dot) and betas (blue dot). Image source

From these examples—both within P136 and without—I think we can confidently say that P136 reads βουλη not δουλη in Acts 4:28 and is a witness to the text otherwise known in all other manuscripts at this point. Kudos to whoever did the transcription for the VMR (anyone know?) for catching this before me. It certainly does look like a delta, but a closer inspection confirms we have a beta. There is still plenty to puzzle us about P136, but I hope to have shown that this one letter is not one of them.

Notable Textual Changes in the NRSVue NT

Produced by the National Council of Churches, the NRSV has long been the Bible of mainline Protestant denominations, those in the ecumenical movement, and the wider academy. It has never really been popular among evangelicals to my knowledge. That unpopularity goes all the way back to the controversy over its predecessor, the RSV. But that history is for another day. What we can say is that the NRSV’s reach is still in the top ten of English translations according to data from NPD Bookscan and published by the ECPA: the NRSV was the tenth bestselling English translation last month. 

Be that as it may, readers may not remember that six years ago I shared news about a planned update to the NRSV. You may also not remember that textual criticism was front and center as a justification for the need to revise, going so far as to name the CBGM itself. So, text-critical changes have been prominent in the justification for the NRSVue since the start. Besides that, the NRSVue is also noteworthy for text-critics because the general NT editor was none other than our own ETC blog member, Michael W. Holmes. (For the full list of contributors, see here.) 

So, what were the results? According to the preface, “The NRSVue presents approximately 12,000 substantive edits and 20,000 total changes, which include alterations in grammar and punctuation.” Obviously, most of these cannot be text-critical and many are in the OT. The new preface does have a pretty detailed section on textual criticism, at least as far as translation prefaces go. It says:

For the New Testament, the team based its work on three recent editions of the Greek New Testament: (1) The Greek New Testament, 5th revised edition (United Bible Societies, 2014); (2) The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010); and, (3) for Acts and the Catholic Letters, Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013, 2017). Occasionally these editions differ in regard to text or punctuation; in such cases the team followed the reading best supported by a combination of both traditional and more recent approaches and considerations. As in the original NRSV, double brackets are used to enclose a few passages that are generally regarded to be later additions to the text but that have been retained because of their antiquity and importance in the textual tradition. Here and there in the notes the phrase “Other ancient authorities read” identifies alternative readings preserved by Greek manuscripts and early versions. In both Testaments, other possible translations of the text are indicated by the word “Or.” 

Textual criticism continues to evolve. Not only have additional manuscripts become available, but some of the goals and methodology have changed over the last several decades. This is more the case for reconstructing the books of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, but it is generally true for the entire enterprise. In the NRSVue, care was taken not to push too far ahead of the existing critical editions or to turn the translation itself and its notes into a critical edition. Nevertheless, a careful reader will notice in general a more generous use of the notes for alternative readings. The editors hope that this work will serve translators in the future.

In light of the emphasis on textual criticism, I wondered what changes I could find. This is just from my spot-checking, mind you. I haven’t found a list of changes anywhere yet.

• Matt. 19.9: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The longer reading was in the footnote before along with the reading of B and some others. I’m guessing this change is due to Holmes’s influence given his 1990 JBL article on the subject which you should all read and heed.
• Mark 1.1: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.” To which I can only say, booooo! (The right reading is in the footnote and at least they got Mark 1.41 right.)
• Luke 10:41-42: “But the Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things, but few things are needed—indeed only one.[a] Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.’ ” Note a gives the shorter reading that was the main text in the NRSV: “Other ancient authorities read but only one thing is needed.”
• John 1.18: “No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who[f] is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” Note f reads “Other ancient authorities read is the only Son who.” The former edition read “It is God the only Son, who...” with a slightly different note.
• Acts 3.13: “The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,[c] the God of our ancestors, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him.” Footnote c says, “Other ancient authorities read and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” which is what the NRSV read before.
• Eph. 5.22: the paragraph break is now after 5.21 instead of before with a new footnote that says there is no verb in 5.22. That’s an interesting combination of judgments, but at least can claim the support of Vaticanus.
• 1 Pet 4.16: footnote now says, “Other ancient authorities read in this respect” (for “in this name”).
• 2 Pet 3.10: footnote now says, “Other ancient authorities read will not be found or will be burned up.” The first part of that refers to the conjecture in NA28 which has support only of a few Coptic and Syriac witnesses.
• Jude 5: “Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, once and for all, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” The NRSV had “the Lord.”

For more on the process behind the NRSVue, see https://www.christiancentury.org/article/interview/even-better-bible

The Women Behind Your Critical Editions

Today, in cooperation with the INTF in Münster, we co-publish an important post written by Greg Paulson and Katie Leggett in order to highlight some of the women behind the critical editions in wide use today. Paulson and Legett have interviewed five women currently working on the editions, talking about their background, qualifications, and unique contributions to the editions. (Dora Panella in the picture is not currently working on the editions but might get something in later on.)

The staff at the INTF is half female and has more female NT text critics than any other institution in the field. Therefore we are happy to highlight these amazing women here!

---

By Greg Paulson with Katie Leggett

From left to right: Katrin Landefeld, Megan Burnett, Marie-Luise Lakmann, Annette Hüffmeier, Dora Panella, Katharina Sandmeier

It's well known that the critical editions produced at the INTF in Münster—the Nestle-Aland, the UBS Greek New Testament, and the Editio Critica Maior (ECM)—are renowned worldwide and provide the basis for almost all modern New Testament translations around the globe. Most will also know that Barbara Aland was the first female director of the INTF, serving from 1983-2004, and leaving an indelible legacy on the institute and the wider field of New Testament textual criticism. A lesser-known fact, however, and one that we are also very proud of, is that half of the INTF's current staff working on these acclaimed critical editions is female.

In this blogpost we would like to introduce you to some of the highly qualified women behind your critical editions. Through these short interviews we hope you get to know them better and see how each of their contributions has a direct impact on the most widely used Greek New Testaments in the world.

- - -

Dr. Marie-Luise Lakmann

Tell us about your academic background and what brought you to the INTF:

After studying Classical Philology (Greek, Latin, Pedagogy) at the University of Münster, I began a project called Platonism in Antiquity in 1985 led by Matthias Baltes, which was a comprehensive study of the history of Plato's philosophy in texts and commentaries. As part of this project, I wrote my doctoral thesis called "Der Platoniker Tauros in der Darstellung des Aulus Gellius" (Leiden 1993). In 2002, the INTF advertised a position to collaborate in developing a digital edition with the most important manuscripts of the New Testament, called "Digitale Edition der überlieferungsgeschichtlich wichtigsten Handschriften des Neuen Testaments mit kritischem Apparat auf einer Website," better known as NT Transcripts (http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/).