The following is a note from Darrell Post on the text and correction of P66 at John 11.3. —Ed.
One of the more interesting corrections found in P66 came from John 11:3, απεστειλεν ουν μαρ[.]α προς αυτον λεγουσα (“Then Mar[.]a sent to him saying”) written first, then changed to the reading familiar to us, απεστειλαν ουν αι αδελφαι προς αυτον λεγουσαι (“Then the sisters sent to him saying”).
Which sister was penned in the first writing? The initial mu and alpha are barely visible and the rho is clearly visible. The final alpha was not erased but instead incorporated into the correction as the second alpha in αδελφαι. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer has argued that the original name was “Maria” and this nicely fits her theory that Martha was a second century interpolation.
But the space between the partially erased rho and the final alpha would be unusually wide for the iota, and in fact is exactly the same width as the space between the same two letters in Martha’s name as written in 11:5. The INTF’s Manuscript Workspace has the best images available for P66, and in the animation below, there are two images that flip back and forth. One is the original image where the theta appears to be hiding behind the phi, and the second is the same image except I have digitally removed the theta.
The back and forth action between the two enables one to see the place where the theta crossbar started at the left and continued through to touch the alpha on the right. Several portions of the forward slanting oval from the theta are still clearly visible. Furthermore, the later phi was written with a flat top to the circle, suggesting it was inked this way to cover a previously written crossbar. Below the animation is a clip of Martha’s name written in John 11:30 where the style of theta written is a match to the theta in 11:3. These observations might explain why NA28 affirmed the first writing was Martha, whereas prior editions had proposed Maria.
 |
| μαρθα at John 11.3 in P66. Images used by permission of the Martin Bodmer Foundation, Geneva. |
Nice work!
ReplyDeleteThough others know better about this than me:
ReplyDeletea) has Elizabeth S. P. been invited to comment?
b) is it fair to speculate or even assume that whoever changed the text from one named sister (either one) to sisters plural was aware of differing texts or traditions?
Hi Stephen, everyone is free to comment, and free to speculate, though it is difficult to prove what scribes were thinking as they penned mistakes and corrections.
DeleteHi Darrell. Thanks. I agree. I forfend from claiming proof on this. Though is the change to sisters plural plausible?
DeleteYes, if I understand your question correctly. It is acknowledged by everyone I have read that the scribe first wrote either Maria or Martha, and then corrected the writing to αι αδελφαι, while also including the minor change of the verb and participle from singular to plural. In 1965, Fee must have been looking at a grainy B/W facsimile because he only cautiously identified the mu, but refrained from saying he saw the following alpha. But the debate here has always been around iota or theta resulting in either Maria or Martha. But the change to αι αδελφαι is not in dispute.
DeleteThank you. Given that non-dispute, is there a consensus view (I guess not), or else you own view, on the reason for the change?
DeleteThe scribe in P66 made many mistakes that were corrected. Much has been written about this. The scribe had just written verse two where Maria by name was the one who anointed Jesus. So starting into verse three, the scribe may have only glanced at his exemplar, tried to store too much information in his mind, and then after penning the singular verb form instead of plural (a 1-letter error), mistakenly wrote Martha as the subject (contrasting verse two) who sent to Jesus. Then some time after writing the singular participle "saying," the mistake was noticed and corrected. That's one possibility. I am open to hearing other possibilities.
DeleteHello Darrell and thank you for this post. You also provided a nice table with similar evidence in your Bible and Spade article. However, both publications omit the highly relevant evidence of John 20:11, where the transcription of the name μαρια has a very wide space between the ι and α. A high resolution image is available on the CSNTM website: https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P66_Bodmer
ReplyDeleteNote that there is a faint downward diagonal line between the ι and α of μαρια at 20:11; the Bodmer was kind enough to examine the leaf for me with high resolution and infrared imaging, and they confirmed that this is a loose fiber.
Since the exact same scribe occasionally left quite a bit of room between the ι and α of μαρια, it seems that μαρ[1]α is all we can be certain of in John 11:3.
Any comment on the changes in John 11:3 must also engage with the dative feminine singular being transcribed in 11:4 of P66* (i.e. ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν *αὐτῇ* · ἡ ἀσθένια...). The wide space in 11:4 immediately before Jesus speaks the words η ασθενια, as well as the hypodiastole correction after ειπεν (presumably after the woman was split in two), indicate that P66* had only one woman in mind for *both* 11:3 and 11:4. Perhaps the scribe was storing too much information in his mind - but considering the length of this passage, it is also possible that he had access to a different text form of the Lazarus story.
ReplyDeleteSorry that comment was from me!
DeleteSpacing comparisons are of course best argued by averages. There can always be an outlier. The average of the examples closest to 11:3 show the space between the rho and alpha is, on average, unusually wide even for a theta, much more so for iota. And the space between rho and alpha is an identical match to Martha’s name in 11:5. But the question of spacing is only supplemental to the primary evidence from the image of 11:3 in P66. There are the clear traces of a prior forward slanting oval, matching the theta as written in Martha’s name in 11:30.
ReplyDelete