Here is a rather poor image, scanned from Schenke, of the Coptic ms of John 20 that has been thought by some to give ms support to the idea that John 21 was not originally part of the Gospel. I assume that the scanning of a single image is within copyright law. The ms ends midway down a page with John 20:31.As for dating Schenke (p. 893) says,
‘Die Schrift des Texts wirkt jedoch ausgesprochen flüssig und scheint am ehesten mit dem Urkundenstil des 4. Js.s vergleichbar zu sein.’
I have represented the end of the text thus, using typos, incomplete words, etc. to represent the Coptic.
Are writte]n not in this book. Are written these things but in order th[at
You] may believ that the Lord is the Chris[t] the s
on of] God
you may recei]ve life for ever in
his] name
and you will rece<>
As you can see the end of the text is a real mess. Could it just be that the scribe gave up? I'll try to put the Coptic text up, once I work out how to do it! In the mean time I have put the Coptic text in a file here.
Bibliography:
Gesa Schenke, 'Das Erscheinen Jesu vor den Jüngern und der ungläubige Thomas: Johannes 20,19-31' in Louis Painchaud and Paul-Hubert Poirier, eds, Coptica - Gnostica - Manichaica: Mélanges offerts à Wolf-Peter Funk (Les presses de l'Université Laval / Peeters, 2006) pp. 893-904.
I'd be interested to know if anyone on the blog has worked with single leaves much, and so whether this looks - on a purely material level - as if it the breakage down the middle looks like the papyrus might have been folded vertically.
ReplyDeleteI don't have my photocopy of the photo to hand, but it seems to me that in terms of the position on the page, the break is pretty much half way across the page. Of the last three full lines:
antepen.: 31 reconstructed characters; break after 14
penultimate: 30 reconstructed characters; break after 15
last full line: 28 reconstructed characters; break after 16
I'm more confident than Schenke that the text on the previous page (i.e. the beginning of Jn 20.19-31) could have started on a new line, and so this could have been a nice single page with the second and third Johannine resurrection pericopae. And we know that some Coptophones were quite interested in Thomas!
Gathers
Thanks for this post, as it has saved a lot of legwork!
ReplyDeleteI hadn't realized how much of a mess this page is, which problematizes its use as definitive evidence of a non-John 21 edition of John.
I second the question about working with single leaves, specifically wondering about this being something like a practice copy. That vertical folding may be do more to a natural breakdown in this sheet due to a manufactural flaw. That is simply the nature of the material.
I guess this is a pretty old post, but here's that Coptic for you:
ReplyDeleteⲈⲚⲤⲈⲤⲎ]Ϩ ⲀⲚ ⲈⲠⲈⲒϪⲰⲘⲈ ⲈⲚⲦⲀⲨⲤϨⲀⲒ ⲚⲀⲒ ⲚⲆⲈ ϪⲈⲔⲀ[Ⲥ
ⲈⲦⲈⲦⲚ]ⲀⲠⲒⲤⲦⲈⲨ ϪⲈ ⲠϪⲞⲒⲤ ⲠⲈ ⲠⲈⲬⲢⲒⲤ[Ⲧ]ⲞⲤ ⲠϢ
ⲎⲢⲈ Ⲙ]ⲠⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ ⲠⲈ ϪⲈⲔⲀⲤ ⲈⲦⲈⲦⲚⲀⲠⲒ <Ϫ>ⲈⲔⲀⲤ
ⲈⲦⲈⲦⲚⲀϪ]Ⲓ ⲚⲞⲨⲰⲚϨ ⲚϢⲀ ⲈⲚⲈϨ ⲈϨⲢⲀⲒ ϨⲘ
ⲠⲈϤ]ⲢⲀⲚ
ⲀⲨⲰ ⲚⲦⲈⲦⲚϪ<Ⲓ>
Unfortunately, Blogger doesn't seem to allow superscript and strikethrough formatting in comments, so you'll have to supply those.