P.Bodmer II (P66), a Marginal Correction, and the Useful Life of Books

While re-reading James Royse's discussion of P66, I came across his brief mention of a correction at John 13:19a. It seems that the original copyist skipped over an entire line in their exemplar and omitted the following phrase in red, 

ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα πιστεύσηται ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.

The interesting feature about this correction is that it appears to be the only correction not made by the original copyist of the manuscript. Here are Gordon Fee's comments in full.

"However, there is one correction which seems clearly to be the work of a second hand: the addition of απ αρτι λεγω υμιν προ at 13:19. The square μ and υ simply demand a second hand: in the original scribe’s hand (even in the corrections which are obviously his) these letters are always well-rounded. Although this particular hand does not seem to be clearly in evidence at any other point, it does indicate that a second hand has had access to the MS." (Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II, 59)

The script used in P66 has been classified by Turner as "informal round" which has letters that "are rounded but also seem flattened" (Turner and Parsons, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 21). Orsini and Clarysse have placed the script of P66 into their "Alexandrian Stylistic Class" which is characterized by letters that are "unimodular and looped, and the strokes end in apices (in the lower parts) and small hooks (in the upper parts); sometimes curves and flourishes are added at the end of letters." (Orsini and Clarysse, "Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates," 458).

 

P.Bodmer II showing correction at John 13:19

When examining the interlinear correction at John 13:19 in closer detail, the difference in the two scripts is apparent. As Fee noted in the quote above, the μ and υ are markedly different, the correction being more angular and less looped and curved than the letters of the main text. Also note the difference in shape and the flow of the pen strokes in the way the alpha, mu, upsilon, and omicron are formed (these letters are highlighted in red below).

Closeup detail of John 13:19 correction in P.Bodmer II (P66). Compare the highlighted letters in the original script with those of the interlinear correction at the top.

Also, added to the difference in letter shapes is the difference in ink. It is difficult to see the details in the gray scale image, but it appears that the ink of the marginal correction is darker and the ductus is sharper with less fading from the ink. Again, it is difficult to tell from this image, but it appears to be a different ink that was used in the correction as compared to the main body of text. When comparing the script of the correction at John 13:19 with the more formal rounded biblical majuscule of the fourth and fifth centuries, clear parallels can be seen.

Closeup detail of John 13.19 in Codex Sinaiticus (top), Codex Alexandrinus (Second from top), Codex Vaticanus (Second from Bottom), and the Correction at John 13.19 in P66 (bottom).

I aligned the same text from John 13:19 with the text from three other codices in order to illustrate the close similarities between the style of script used in these manuscripts (in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the text spread across two lines so I altered the image so that the text from these manuscripts would appear horizontally together for comparison purposes). When looking at the overall letter forms, it seems that the scribe of the correction in P66 was using a very similar script to that used in these other manuscripts. This script is designated by Orsini and Clarysse as "Biblical majuscule" and they place both Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus into this classification (Orsini and Clarysse, "Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates," 451). According to Orsini and Clarysse, this script was used as early as the second century and they place P64+67+4 into an early stream of this style and assign a date of the late second to the early third century.

John 13.19 Correction in P66 (top) and detail from P4 (bottom)

Though the image from P4 is not as high quality, I compared similar letters from P4 with the correction at John 13:19 in P66 (highlighted in red above). There are definately close similarities between these scripts, especially with the more uniform thickness of the strokes, when compared with the corresponding thinner-thicker ductus of the fourth century codices. Therefore, purely on palaeographical grounds, this interlinear correction at John 13:19 could have occurred anywhere from the third century, into the fourth or even fifth centuries. However, the uniform thickness of the strokes in the P66 correction looks closer to the script in P4, so if this fact holds any chronological weight, then the correction is likely earlier rather than later within this 3rd to fourth century spectrum.

This correction indicates that someone was using P.Bodmer II at a date sometime after the book was produced, they noticed the omission by the copyist, and added the missing text in between the lines. It's possible that this correction occurred during one of the many rebindings that P66 underwent in its (apparently long) useful life. Nongbri has a detailed discussion of this rebinding in his treatment of the appearance of quire signatures in P66. The quire signatures could be from the orginal binding, or could possibly originate from a later rebinding. Either way, the quire signatures do not correspond with the latest binding preserved in the manuscript .According to Nongbri, quire signatures are first seen in the early fourth century so it is likely that multiple rebindings occurred on P66 in the fourth and possibly early fifth centuries (See the full discussion in Nongbri, "The Limits," 29-32).

 

P.Bodmer II detail showing reinforcement repair in the spine (highlighted in red)

P.Bodmer II detail showing reinforcement repair in the spine (highlighted in red)

 

 Figures 20 and 21 taken from Nongbri "The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri," pg. 30, with the quire signatures highlighted in red.

If a third century production of the codex holds true, then the manuscript was used for about one hundred years before it was repaired sometime in the fourth century. It is possible, as Nongbri suggests, that at this time the quire signatures were placed in the manuscript and perhaps, the marginal interlinear correction at John 13:19 was made by the scribe who was facilitating the rebinding (highly speculative I admit). The manuscript continued to be used and the reinforcing strips and possibly another rebinding ocurred in the later fourth or even into the fifth century and the page margins (and the remains of the quire numbers) where trimmed. Then finally, the codex was deposited into its final location in the fifth, or perhaps (if Robinson's material is included in the same deposit) into the sixth or even seventh centuries (Nongbri, "The Limits," 25). That means that this manuscript was being used anywhere from 200 to 300 years before it was deposited into its final location (see earlier blog post here). 

One final comparison of scripts is worth noting here. P.Bodmer XIV–XV (P75) also contains a marginal comment that uses a similar "Biblical Majuscule" script as that used in the John 13:19 correction of P66. 

The marginal comments in P.Bodmer XIV-XV (P75) compared with the correction at John 13:19 in P.Bodmer II (P66) 

 

Though not an exact match, the marginal comments in P75 are very similar to the correction at John 13:19 in P66. Look especially at the two circled alphas, their shape and form is very similar, though they are not exactly the same hand because there are minor differences in the size and shape of the upsilon and the omicron, and the marginal hand in P75 has no serifs or hooks like those in the correction in P66. With that said, this indicates that these new testament codices were being used and read well into the fourth and fifth centuries. This corresponds with Houston's assessment.

"The identification of such collections, and of the manuscripts within them, provides new evidence on an old question: how long did a papyrus roll last? The evidence from our collections indicates that a usable lifetime of about 100 to 125 years was common and can reasonably be considered the norm; a small but significant number of manuscripts were still usable some 300 years after they were first created; and on rare occasions a manuscript might last, it seems, for half a millennium." (Inside Roman Libraries, p. 257)

____________________________________________

Fee, Gordon, Papyrus Bodmer II (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics (Studies and Documents, 34; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1968). 

Houston, George W. Inside Roman Libraries: Book Collections and Their Management in Antiquity (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 2014).

Nongbri, Brent, “The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66),” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 1-35

Orsini, Pasquale and Willy Clarysse, “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88 (2012): 443-74. 

Royse, James Ronald. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36. Leiden: Brill, 2008).

Turner, E. G. Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (2nd edition, ed. P. J. Parsons. London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies, 1987) 

Review of Garrick Allen, Words Are Not Enough: Paratexts, Manuscripts, and the Real New Testament

 

In the September 2025 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society appears my review of,

Garrick Allen. Words Are Not Enough: Paratexts, Manuscripts, and the Real New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2024)

My review of the book is positive, my chief disappointment being the lack of detailed discussion of commentary manuscripts. Here is my concluding assessment.

"Though Allen uses nonacademic language, the work is replete with extensive footnotes providing a well-researched and documented study. At nineteen pages, the bibliography is an excellent resource in itself, providing a ready starting point for research into this complex field. Overall, Words Are Not Enough is a welcome introductory work that meets a need in the broader field of NT manuscript studies." (JETS 68.3 (2025), 579)

Nomina Sacra and Assigning dates to Early Christian Papyri

Closeup detail of P75 showing the "staurogram" at Luke 14:27
(https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Hanna.1(Mater.Verbi) Image 1B.10r)

An article by Peter Rodgers was recently published postulating that the number and presence of words abbreviated as nomina sacra can be used as a rough marker for assigning a date to a particular manuscript.

Peter Rodgers, 'Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 4 Reconsidered," Filología neotestamentaria 38, no. 58 (2025): 77-88.

In this article Rodgers is responding to the argument laid out in the following article.. 

Brent Nongbri "Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 2 (2016): 405-437.

In this piece, Nongbri argues that Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (P75) should be dated into the fourth century (ca. 350 CE) rather than in the first half of the third century (see previous post here). Nongbri uses the similarity in script used in P75 with similar scripts used in other securely dated fourth-century manuscripts to widen the possible dates of P75 into the fourth century. He then argues that the fourth century is a more likely date for the copying of P75 because of its close textual affinity to the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus.

In response to Nongbri's claims, Rodgers brings in the second-century P4 as supporting evidence for an early second-century stream of text found in P75 and Vaticanus. However, because Nongbri has also questioned the traditional second-century date for P4 as well, Rodgers looks to details other than handwriting to shine light on the dates of these two papyri (Nongbri, God's Library, 247-68). Rodgers does this by looking at the number of words abbreviated as nomia sacra in each papyrus. There are fifteen total words that have been abbreviated as nomia sacra in the most developed systems in the later manuscripts. In P4 "[o]nly God, Jesus, Lord, Christ and Spirit are abbreviated" (Rodgers, 84). In P75, there are eleven words that have been abbreviated as nomina sacra. Rodgers concluded,

"If we consider the use of the first four or five as earlier, and the addition of others as of a later date, we may surmise that, other things being equal, P4 is of a decidedly earlier date than P75. It is therefore reasonable to consider P4 to be from the late second century, and P75 to date from some time in the third or fourth century" (Rodgers, 84).

Because the tau-rho ligature, the staurogram, is used in P75, this adds an additional layer of complexity to the dating issue (see image above). Rodger notes that because the device is used within the context of the gospel narrative and is not used as a stand alone symbol, its use fits more comfortably in the third century rather than the fourth (Rodgers, 86).

I agree with Rodgers that the presence of the staurogram fits better in the third century, and that it may have been used as early as the late second century. For example, in an earlier post, I highlight the presence of the IH nomen sacrum for Jesus's name in the Latin text of the Frankfurt Amulet. It is interesting that there is a cross shape that is formed as the lengthened iota of the nomen sacrum intersects with the interlinear superscript to form a cross shape. This appears to be deliberate, and considering these nomina sacra in the amulet are Greek in a Latin text, it points to a much earlier adoption of these symbols in older Greek manuscripts. Considering the date (230-260 or 270 CE) of the context the amulet was found in, it means that cruciform imagery was used in nomina sacra at least by the begining of the third century, or even the late second century (if the burial where the amulet was found can be dated to 230 CE). (See also this earlier post discussing the staurogram and the Epistle of Barnabas)

Rodgers notes the presence of the staurogram at Revelation 11:8 in Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, its lack of use in the Gospel accounts in Sinaiticus means that its presence in Revelation 11:8 is most likely due to it being carried over from the exemplar (as Rodgers indicates on page 85). 

Though I do think that the details of Rodgers's arguments could be fleshed out in greater and more convincing detail, this article is a step in the right direction. Though I seriously doubt it will move the needle much in the debates surrounding the dates of these papyri.

______________________________________
Bibliography

Nongbri, Brent, God’s Library (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).

_______________, "Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament" Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 2 (2016): 405-437

Rodgers, Peter, 'Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 4 Reconsidered," Filología neotestamentaria 38, no. 58 (2025): 77-88.

Tertullian, the Alexamenos Graffito, and P66

Approximately 1800 years ago someone (a child or teenager) scrawled (in Greek) an insult into the plaster walls of Emperor Caligula's former palace, "Alexamenos worships [his] god'' along with a crudely drawn image of a figure raising their hand in worship to a crucified figure with a donkey's head. This particular section of Caligula's palace was later used as a training school for court servants who had graduated from the Paedagogium ad caput Africae (School at the head of Africa), "from the name of a street which led from the Coliseum to the aristocratic quarter of the Coelia" (Lanciani, Ancient Rome, 122). There are many inscriptions that testify to this time period. One inscription reads, Corinthus exit de paedagogio (Corinthus exits the School). The most famous inscription is the insult to Alexamenos, also known as the Alexamenos Graffitto. The crudely drawn image has the Greek phrase "Ἀλεξάμενος σέβετε θεόν," with σέβετε being a phonetic misspelling of σέβεται, the ε and the diphthong αι were pronounced the same at this time (MacLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, 208).

Sketch of the Alexamenos graffito (Garrucci, Il crocifisso graffito, 5)

There have been a variety of dates given for this inscription with proposals ranging as early as 85 CE, but with the standard date given as the third century. Hans Schwarz, Christology, argues that the Alexamenos gaffito dates to 85AD (pg. 207) whereas Raffaele Garrucci, Il crocifisso graffito, argues that the graffito should be dated to the early third century (pg. 13). Peter Keegan notes that 

"[u]sing relative and internal criteria to determine various relationships between the building and the graffiti, it is possible to say that, in relative terms, the graffiti in room 6 are Trajanic, Hadrianic, or possibly Antonine (CE 98-138 or 192), while those in rooms 7 and 8 date to the second and third centuries AD. Applying internal criteria case by case allows a few graffiti to be traced specifically to the time of Septimius Severus and the Severan period." (Keegan, "Reading the ‘Pages’ of the Domus Caesaris," 72)

Image of Alexamenos graffito (Lanciani, Ancient Rome, 123)

 

The uncertainty expressed concerting the dating of the graffito has probably been leveraged too far in the case of P.Bodmer II (P66). Brent Nongbri argued that P66 was likely copied in the 4th century rather than the early 3rd-century as it has often been presented (Nongbri, "The Limits," 34-35). One piece of evidence that Nongbri points to as supporting a 4th century date is the presence of the tau-rho ligature known as the "staurogram" (see earlier post). I have already addressed some of the problems with these conclusions in an earlier post, as further support for dating the use of cruciform imagery into the 4th century, Nongbri mentioned the Alexamenos graffito (Nongbri, "The Limits," 33-34, footnote 84). He notes the certainty of the terminus post quem yet states that the 3rd century dating "was largely based upon the editor's opinion of when such a polemical graffito would have been appropriate" (Nongbri, "The Limits," 33-34, footnote 84). The editor Nongbri was citing was Raffaele Garrucci. Unfortunately, Nongbri never engages with the content of Garrucci's arguments but rather disregards it as mere editorial opinion. Garrucci actually cites several ancient sources that do in fact make a date of the early third century a more plausible date for the graffito. Lets turn to some of the evidence below.

Tertullian 

Tertullian wrote his Apology in the year 197-198 CE (Glover, "Introduction," xix). In it he quotes a common myth, perpetuated by the Roman historian Tacitus (Tertullian quotes from book five of his Annals), that Jews worshiped the head of an ass.

"For, like some others, you are under the delusion that our god is an ass's head. Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds. In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation; and theorizing at his pleasure about the origin, as well as the name and the religion of the Jews, he states that having been delivered, or rather, in his opinion, expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia, where water is so scanty, they were in extremity from thirst; but taking the guidance of the wild asses, which it was thought might be seeking water after feeding, they discovered a fountain, and thereupon in their gratitude they consecrated a head of this species of animal. And as Christianity is nearly allied to Judaism, from this, I suppose, it was taken for granted that we too are devoted to the worship of the same image." (Tertullian, Apol. 16)

Tertullian continued with the same theme of Christians being accused of worshiping an ass's head later in the same chapter.

"But lately a new edition of our god has been given to the world in that great city: it originated with a certain vile man who was wont to hire himself out to cheat the wild beasts, and who exhibited a picture with this inscription: The God of the Christians, born of an ass. He had the ears of an ass, was hoofed in one foot, carried a book, and wore a toga. Both the name and the figure gave us amusement. But our opponents ought straightway to have done homage to this biformed divinity, for they have acknowledged gods dog-headed and lion-headed, with horn of buck and ram, with goat-like loins, with serpent legs, with wings sprouting from back or foot. These things we have discussed ex abundanti, that we might not seem willingly to pass by any rumor against us unrefuted." (Tertullian, Apol. 16)

This myth was so widespread that Tertullian, living in Carthage North Africa, was able to speak of the popularity of this myth in Rome.

 

Minucius Felix 

Writing about the same time as Tertullian, Minucius Felix, living in Rome, wrote about a similar myth that the Romans believed concerning the Christians supposedly worshiping the head of an ass.

"I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion." (Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9)

Celsus

Origen, writing in the mid 3rd century, quotes from Celsus, the pagan philosopher who wrote a polemic against Christians around the year 180 CE (Hoffmann, Celsus, On the true Doctrine, 32). Celsus's work was called, On the True Doctrine, and he mentions the following myth concerning Jews and Christians.

"For the sake of such a monstrous delusion, and in support of those wonderful advisers, and those wonderful words which you address to the lion, to the amphibious creature, to the creature in the form of an ass, and to others, for the sake of those divine doorkeepers whose names you commit to memory with such pains, in such a cause as this you suffer cruel tortures, and perish at the stake." (Origen, Contra Celsum, 7.40)

Celsus notes that Christians are willing to die as martyrs for their beliefs and associates the image of an ass with Christian devotion.

Conclusions

The literary evidence from the first through the third centuries is extensive; the Romans believed that Christians worshiped the head of an ass. It seems very fitting then that a slave in the imperial entourage would be a Christian (see Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96, who describes Christian slaves as the object of his interrogation). It also seems highly plausible that one of the many other slaves would taunt this Christian with images of a donkey-headed Jesus on a cross sometime in the late second century when Celsus was writing and when Tertullian was writing about these myths. This negative depiction of Christian veneration of Jesus on the cross fits well within a late second through early third century context. This means that the use of the "staurogram" as a visual representation of Jesus on the cross in P.Bodmer II (P66) fits well within the period of it's early third century dating.

The Staurogram in P.Bodmer II (P66) 

(https://bodmerlab.unige.ch/fr/constellations/papyri/mirador/1072205287?page=140)

________________________________

Bibliography

 

Garrucci, Raffaele, Il crocifisso graffito in casa dei cesari ed il simbolismo cristiano in una corniola del secondo secolo (COI TIPI DELLA CIVILTÀ CATTOLICA, 1857)
(https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_kE9SZ86woNQC/page/n1/mode/2up)

Glover, T. R., trans. Tertullian, Apology and De Spectaculis, Gerald H. Rendall, trans. Minucius Felix, Octavius (LOEB, Harvard University Press, 1931)

Hoffmann, R. Joseph , tans. Celsus, On the true doctrine: a discourse against the Christians (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). 

Keegan, Peter, “Reading the ‘Pages’ of the Domus Caesaris: Pueri Delicati, Slave Education, and the Graffiti of the Palatine Paedagogium,” in Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture, edited by Michelle George (University of Toronto Press, 2013); 69–98

Lanciani, Rodolfo, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (Cambridge, MA: Houghton and Mifflin, 1888) (https://archive.org/details/ancientromeinlig00lancuoft/page/121/mode/1up)
 

MacLean, B.H., An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (University of Michigan Press, 2002).
(https://books.google.com/books?id=x2AD3M77TgMC&pg=RA1-PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Nongbri, Brent “The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66),” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 1-35.

Schwarz, Hans, Christology (Eerdmans, 1998).

Augustine and Jerome on Composition, Publication, and Biblical Scholarship

I was reading through Jerome's Letter 112 (Augustine's Letter 75) in which he wrote to Augustine of Hippo in reply to a number of questions that Augustine had sent by way of a Deacon named Cyprian. In this letter, Jerome is responding to a series of lengthy questions that Augustine had sent through to his location in Jerusalem. There are many interesting insights into the way in which books were composed and circulated in the late antique Roman world. 

Jerome mentions in passing that Cyprian had brought three long letters from Augustine that Jerome describes as "three letters, or rather three little books" (Ep. 112.1/1). The striking thing about this is that Jerome had only three days to write a response to these long letters before Cyprian had to leave for the long trip home. That is an amazing turn around by Jerome and was obviously aided by a secretary because he says that he wrote "in the hurry of extemporaneous dictation" (Ep. 112.1/1). Later in the letter Jerome mentions using an amanuensis for dictating quotations from various writers.

"I have dictated to my amanuensis sometimes what was borrowed from other writers, sometimes what was my own, without distinctly remembering the method, or the words, or the opinions which belonged to each." (112.3/4)

In his response, Jerome mentions that Augustine had acquired a copy of Jerome's work "On Illustrious Men," but without a title affixed.

"You say that you received from some brother a book of mine, in which I have given a list of ecclesiastical writers, both Greek and Latin, but which had no title; and that when you asked the brother aforesaid (I quote your own statement) why the titlepage had no inscription, or what was the name by which the book was known, he answered that it was called Epitaphium, i.e. Obituary Notices." (Jerome Ep. 112.2/3)

This is a fascinating interaction because Augustine, living in North Africa, was able to send a letter to Jerome, all the way across the Mediterranean, in Jerusalem, asking Jerome to explain what the intended title was for his work. That is a distance of some 1,500 to 2,000 miles by sea or land. Yet, despite the distance Augustine was able to send an inquiry, and Jerome was able to send a detailed and lengthy reply.

Besides the question about the title of Jerome's work, Augustine sent detailed examples of potential problems in Jerome's theological interpretation of Pauline theology. Jerome gives a detailed explanation and defense of his theological interpretations and makes the following statement in passing.

"Moreover, refrain from stirring up against me the unlearned crowd who esteem you as their bishop, and regard with the respect due the priestly office the orations which you deliver in the church, but who esteem lightly an old decrepit man like me, courting the retirement of a monastery far from the busy haunts of men; and seek others who may be more fitly instructed or corrected by you. For the sound of your voice can scarcely reach me, who am so far separated from you by sea and land. And if you happen to write me a letter, Italy and Rome are sure to be acquainted with its contents long before it is brought to me, to whom alone it ought to be sent." (112.4/18)

 Jerome appears to be complaining that the correspondence between himself and Augustine is not private, but traverses all of Rome and Italy (which is far closer to Augustine than Jerusalem) before the letter reaches Jerome in a backwater Monastery in Palestine. This is an interesting insight into the speed at which information by letter could be copied and distributed throughout the late Roman Empire. It shows the transparency of their correspondence and the inability for either to fabricate untruths or cover their tracks if they were to engage in heresy or less than stellar scholarship.

Finally, Jerome gives some insight into the way in which he and other early Christian scholars notated their works to indicate the sources of various readings.

"In another letter you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words." (112.5/19)

There are several examples of asterisks and obelisks being used in the margins of manuscripts throughout the centuries. Below are two examples, one image is of an asterisk between the columns of Codex Alexandrinus, and another image is of an obelisk in the margin of a 13th century Latin copy of 2 Corinthians.

Jerome's final jab at Augustine is filled with sarcasm and perhaps a touch of weariness at excessive questions from an unappreciative user of his work.

"Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations." (112.5/19)

This interchange gives valuable insight into the level of scholarship in the late 4th century. It questions the idea of a geographically locating certain readings within their copies of the Bible. For if a copyist found something that was questionable in their copy of the scriptures, they could potentially write to another acquaintance across the Roman world and enquire into the state of the text at their colleague's disposal. This is exactly what we see occurring in the case of Augustine and Jerome.

An obelisk in the margin of a 13th century Latin copy of 2 Corinthians

An asterisk between the columns of Codex Alexandrinus

Scripture as Trash in Roman Oxyrhynchus

 

Excavations in the trash mounds at Oxyrhynchus

 

A number of years ago AnneMarie Luijendijk (a professor at Princeton University) wrote an article addressing the state of biblical manuscripts discovered in the trash heaps of Roman Oxyrhynchus.

 AnneMarie Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures as Trash: Biblical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus," Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010): 217-254.

In this article she notes that many complete manuscripts of both secular classical literature and Christian literature were discarded as trash, often torn up into several pieces before being thrown away (Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures," 244). The fact that these seemingly useful manuscripts were intentionally torn up before discarding is noted as far back as the original excavation reports at Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt (Grenfell and Hunt, “Excavations at Oxyrhynchus," 361). Don Barker has also noted that many of the book fragments found at Oxyrhynchus give evidence of being torn up before being discarded (Barker, “Codex, Roll, and Libraries in Oxyrhynchus,” 140, n33). It is nearly impossible to know the exact circumstances of why these papyri were torn up. Luijendijk gives an insightful answer at the end of the article, comparing the late antique practice of destroying sacred icons before discarding them as a way of breaking the sacred image away from the physical icon.

"I consider it quite likely that people, in this case early Christians from Oxyrhynchus, purposely shredded sacred scriptures when they discarded them in order to definitely break the link between sacred text and sacred manuscript." (Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures," 249)

At the end of the article Luijendijk lists out several copies of New Testament writings (and a few of the Shepherd of Hermas) that where likely thrown out as whole or nearly whole manuscripts, yet torn up into smaller fragments before being tossed into the trash mound. Why would Christians feel the necessity to throw away a copy of their scriptures, even if they were damaged? Luijendijk, indirectly gives an answer, a likely scenario is that these papyrus copies of the New Testament (and the Shepherd of Hermas) were replaced by new parchment copies (Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures," 230-231). Jerome informs us that at one point, an extensive project was undertaken at the Cesarean Library to restore the aging papyrus manuscripts onto parchment codices.

"Euzoius was educated as a young man at Caesarea along with Gregory, the bishop of Nazianzus, under the rhetor Thespesius and later became bishop of the same city; with very great toil he attempted to restore on parchment the library of Origen and Pamphilus that had been damaged." (Jerome, Vir ill. 113; translation taken from Carriker, p. 23, n. 70)

This possibility becomes more likely when considering that there was a manufacturer of manuscript parchment located in Oxyrhychus. Luijendijk argues this fact in another work, suggesting that Sotas, the third century bishop of Oxyrhynchus was likely involved in the production of books, noting that he wrote two letters on fragments of parchment, rather than papyrus. This was highly unusual and indicates that scraps of parchment left over from book production were available for use in letter writing (Luijendijk, "Greetings in the Lord," 144-151).

There are two implications that can be drawn from this evidence concerning the early Christian view of scripture, at least as it was held in Roman Oxyrhynchus at the time these manuscripts were discarded. First, Christians seem to have viewed the “text” of their scripture, the message that they conveyed, as more important than the physical objects of the scriptures. They did not hold onto their physical books as sacred relics to be worshiped, rather, they valued the message that the texts conveyed.

Second, related to this idea, these Christians did not seem to give greater value to the these more ancient books for their closer proximity in time to the “autographs.” In other words, they saw no need to hold onto and preserve these older copies of the New Testament writings as if they would help to safeguard the New Testament from textual corruption. Once good copies of these manuscripts were made, the old ones could be discarded.

Though admittedly speculative, these observations push hard against the idea that the “autographs” of the New Testament survived for centuries. As I have noted in a previous post, it is highly likely that early copies of at least some of the New Testament books lasted for many years. Yet, if the attitudes of Christians at Oxyrhynchus can be extrapolated more broadly in the early Christian community, it is likely that many of the “autographs and first copies” (to borrow Craig Evans’s language) of the New Testament writings were tossed into the trash heaps once good copies were made. It wasn't the guarding and keeping of the "autographs" that preserved the New Testament so amazingly well, it was the early and widespread abundant copying of the New Testament that ensured its preservation.

_______________________

AnneMarie Luijendijk, Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Cambridge/Massachusetts:Harvard University Press, 2008.

  

AnneMarie Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures as Trash: Biblical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus," Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010): 217-254.

 

Andrew James Carriker. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. VCsup 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

 

Craig A. Evans, “How Long were Late Antique Books in Use? Possible Implications for New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 25.1 (2015): 23-37.

 

Don C. Barker, “Codex, Roll, and Libraries in Oxyrhynchus,”Tyndale Bulletin 57.1 (2006): 131-148.

 

Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt, “Excavations at Oxyrhynchus: Fifth Season (1905-6).