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.
DeleteSee my 2023 TC article here: https://jbtc.org/v28/TC-2023_Fellows.pdf The proposed series of cascading adjustments in the ancestors of P66 are shown in the bullet points in the conclusions. After the changes at 11:1 and 11:5 there were no longer two sisters, so 11:3, which mentioned sisters, did not seem to fit. I had thought that P66* had Mary at 11:3, but Darrell persuades me that it was Martha, which also works. After the elimination of Martha at 11:1 it was necessary to introduce Martha before her mention at 11:5. This, and/or the fact that there were no longer two sisters, caused someone to add Martha at 11:3 to replace the sisters. In any event, the series of changes was kicked off by the change of the pronoun in 11:1 from feminine to masculine. This was done so that Martha would be defined by her relationship to a man rather than a woman.
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.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that the space between rho and alpha at 11:3 is unusually wide. That said, even though the transcription of μαρια at 20:11 is an outlier, it's still a documented example from the very same scribe where the tendency occurs on the name μαρια rather than μαρθα. It's a bit odd that you omitted this directly relevant evidence from your chart in Bible and Spade.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "clear traces of a prior forward slanting oval," or "the place where the theta crossbar started," these are overstatements of the evidence. All we have here is a grainy black and white picture; as my fellow papyrologists are well aware, what seems at first to be an ink trace may simply be a shadow, an ink smudge, or an idiosyncrasy of the papyrus itself. I encountered something similar when I was investigating the μαρια of John 20:11; I contacted the Bodmer because I suspected that the faint downward diagonal line was an ink trace of an erased letter (keep in mind this is a recent, high resolution photo from one of the loose leaves!). The Bodmer needed to go to the lab to use infrared imaging; only then could we determine that it was a misplaced fiber. If scholars can't tell from a high resolution image whether something is an idiosyncrasy of the papyrus or an ink trace, how much less certain our conclusions must be by relying on a grainy black and white image. I also note that what you call the "crossbar" of the theta looks very much like dozens of other black spots on the very same papyrus page, most of which are unrelated to ink traces. I write this as someone who has been similarly certain when looking at a photograph of a manuscript, only to be proven otherwise when looking at the manuscript in person, or under different imaging.
You do have a good point about the phi being phi written with a somewhat flat top to the circle. Of course the scribe is doing something quite awkward here, so I'm not sure it proves anything, but I agree that it could be an attempt to overwrite a theta. One other possibility to consider here is whether the scribe wrote *both* women's names (i.e. first μαρθα, then erased it and wrote μαρια, or vice versa); this would make sense if the scribe is aware of multiple text forms and attempting to negotiate them. It's not unlike the activity we see in 11:2 where the scribe is trying out different possibilities mid-transcription. Certainly the smudging between the rho and alpha is significant, and could indicate multiple reworkings.
"It's a bit odd that you omitted this directly relevant evidence from your chart in Bible and Spade."
DeleteThis is not odd at all. I included all the relevant images from John 11 and 12, the data involved in the narrative at hand. Including an image from chapter 20 would not really move the average that much, and in fact the space in 11:3 is unusually wide even for the theta.
I have not overstated the evidence at all. A better image could be taken for sure, but what is seen here is enough. The curves of the oval are nearly identical to the theta in 11:30. I have spent decades looking a manuscripts including papyri, and am well aware of what ink smudges look like along with random marks, shadows, and so forth. There are simply too many pieces of this remaining theta for it to be ignored. The INTF transcription is correct to put a dot under the theta, like they do with the mu and the alpha, indicating that the letter is not entirely visible, but it is indicated by the evidence.
Another chart has just been added to this page showing the evidence from the perspective of looking at the phi. This highlights how the top of the phi's circle is flat, as if to hide a previous crossbar. Looking at this photo with all the phi's from chapter 1 and chapter 11 surrounding the phi in 11:3, this helps the viewer see the background theta pop out visibly in this image. When better imaging of P66 is done, the letter will stand out in sharper detail.
Your phi chart (ha!) is useful, but inconclusive and incomplete. See e.g. the phi of βλασφημεις in 10:36 (just one page before the correction in 11:3, on line 2), or ενταφιασμου in John 12:7, which is also quite blotchy (pg. 86 line 2), or φως in John 12:35, also flat and blotchy at the top (pg. 92 line 3). Even in your chart, the phi two rows directly below the highlighted example provides an example of a more horizontal stroke at the top. I agree that it's possible that in 11:3 "the phi was written in a way to conceal a previously written theta crossbar"; and yet, the scribe may just as well have written the letter in an awkward and blotchy way due to multiple erasures. Your thesis is valid; it's the assertion of certainty that is problematic here. (Even I am not certain that Martha was an interpolation into John! It's simply a competitively plausible hypothesis to make sense of the significant uncertainty around these women's identities in John 11-12, which happens to line up with an established Sitz im Leben of second-century controversy around Mary's leadership.)
DeleteThanks for explaining why you didn't think to include the μαρια of John 20 in your study. I'm not sure the ancients made such a clear delineation between Lazarus's sister Mary and Mary Magdalene (see e.g. Hippolytus's Commentary on the Song of Songs 25.2-3 or the Gospel of Mary) – but your assumption of a clear distinction between Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene clarifies your methodological choice.
What is visible in the image is enough so that theta cannot be ignored, and as I said, the INTF was right to include a dot under the theta in the transcription. I included all the phis in the image even noticing that one that had a blotch. But again, the point is the overall testimony of the evidence, which should not be discarded by finding an outlier.
DeleteAs to significant uncertainty around Martha, I will say more later, but for now, I found after the examination of 2,249 manuscripts there were more anomalies found around Maria's name compared to Martha.
In 2019 you invited the "guild" to take this question up, and I have. I spent 6 years looking at actual manuscripts, and I did not rely on published transcriptions which are often faulty. I know that you would be thrilled if I could come here and report that checking all these witnesses revealed strong evidence for your "competitively plausible hypothesis" but its just not there.
See my comment below - unless you do a similar study on the manuscripts of Luke 10 and discover comparable results, your data simply confirms that there is a real problem of instability around the women's names in John 11 and 12.
DeleteAs a side note, I was a bit puzzled by your comment in Bible and Spade that it is a "speculative idea that there was a serious conflict between the legacies of Peter and Mary Magdalene." Are you unaware of the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas 114, and the Pistis Sophia? The extant manuscripts of these texts were found in different locations and copied over the course of several centuries (3rd-6th). A remembered conflict between the legacies of Peter and Mary is well-established in Nag Hammadi studies; your comment indicates lack of familiarity with this body of scholarship. Antti Marjanen, Ann Graham Brock, Silke Petersen, Christopher Tuckett, Karen King, and Sarah Parkhouse all have respected monographs on this topic.
ReplyDeleteI am well aware of the gnostic gospels. In my article I also said, "If this conflict between the legacies of Mary Magdalene and Peter were true, no evidence exists that a dispute escalated to the point where church leaders considered altering John 11 as a resolution."
DeleteAnd that is the question at hand. Was there an altered version of the Lazarus narrative or not? The places in the narrative where there needed to be the greatest instability, entire verses like verses 28, 29 and 32, there were no manuscripts found that omit these verses, and no evidence was found that these verses had a checkered textual history. You checked 300 manuscripts, I checked 2,249, and found nothing to suggest these critical verses were omitted or altered.
Hmmm. Being "aware of the gnostic gospels" is not the same thing as having familiarity with the scholarship discussing second-century controversy between Peter and Mary. (By way of comparison, "awareness" of Matthew, Mark, and Luke does not equate to familiarity with the Synoptic Problem.) If you haven't read any of the six monographs listed above, your position on the place of Mary in early Christianity is not very well-informed. The most ancient textual transmission of the Gospels was *in Egypt*; P66 was found a mere two hours' walk from Nag Hammadi.
DeleteThe most ancient *extant textual transmission :)
DeleteI am aware of and have a familiarity with the argument of the monographs you listed. That doesn't mean that I have to find it compelling as representing mainstream Christianity. But the question at hand is whether or not the manuscripts give weight to the hypothesis of a Martha-less original.
DeleteAnd how many manuscripts of Luke did you check? Without any comparable data demonstrating a similar trend of confusion around the women's names in Luke, your Bible and Spade article has actually provided even more data demonstrating that there is a major problem around the presentation of Lazarus's sisters in John. Believe it or not, if anyone can demonstrate a similar trend of confusion and instability around Martha and Mary in the Lukan transmission, they could actually change my position on this.
DeleteIt is indeed interesting that verses 28-32 are stable in the transmission of John 11. Then again, those are the exact verses that would need to have been composed (or duplicated) by the interpolator, i.e., those are the only verses featuring Lazarus's sisters that may have never circulated in an alternate form. That factor could also explain their stability in the transmission.
I don't think we're going to persuade each other on this one. Your position is reasonable, even though I do not find it very persuasive.
Oh my, I don't think Mary's prominence represents "mainstream" Christianity either ;) The question here is whether mainstream Christianity felt the need to alter the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist because it was considered problematic for emerging an Petrine primacy. Are we most interested in the words of the Evangelist, or the words that the emerging mainstream was able to receive?
Delete