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: "God's Library," by Brent Nongbri

In recent years, the study of “Christian” manuscripts as cultural artifacts has been gaining traction in the academic world. The binding, the textual formatting, aids to the reader, and other aspects of these manuscripts are being studied by researchers in order to better understand the cultural milieus in which these documents were produced and used.

Brent Nongbri is Honorary Research Fellow at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, and his new book, "God’s Library," is a timely contribution to this trend of studying manuscripts as ancient artifacts. Nongbri writes, “the overall effect of my research is to raise consciousness about how messy and fragmentary our knowledge about these books is” (p. 14-15).

This review begins with a detailed summary for each chapter, for the benefit of those who have not read the book and are considering a purchase. This is followed by an evaluation of a few of the central arguments posited in the work.

The first chapter, “The Early Christian Book,” does a great job at introducing the unfamiliar reader to the materials used in making ancient books (either papyrus or animal skins, p. 24-27), along with the inks used in writing the text (p. 26), though more thorough treatments can be found in other handbooks. Where this chapter shines is in the overview of the various kinds of binding and quire gatherings used in stitching codices (p. 27-36), the various extant covers (p. 38-40), and the ancient repairing of codices (p. 40-41). Nongbri makes sure to note that the differences in codex construction, the style of stitching, the use of single or multi-quires, “do not, however, have any bearing on the dates of our surviving copies” (p. 36).

The various methods used in dating ancient manuscripts is discussed in chapter two, “The Dating Game” (p. 47-82). Nongbri introduces the reader to the methods palaeographers use to establish the dates of undated literary manuscripts and highlights several problems with the discipline (p. 49-72). The use of “Radiocarbon analysis” to determine the date of manuscripts is evaluated and several problems with the technique are discussed (p. 72-80). Methods of “Ink Analysis” are examined and the case of the “Gospel of Judas” (Codex Tchacos) is brought to bear as evidence of difficulties with the method (p. 80-82). At the end of the chapter Nongbri warns the reader that “if you see reports of dates like ‘circa 150 CE’ or ‘about the year 200’ in reference to an early Christian manuscript, you should be very suspicious” (p. 82).

In chapter three, “Finding Early Christian Books,” Nongbri recounts several interesting anecdotes surrounding the discoveries of several important ancient Christian manuscript collections; “The Coptic Codices of Hamuli” (p. 86-91), and “The Coptic Codices of Nag Hammadi” (p. 108-115). Other important or interesting manuscript find locations (if known) are also surveyed.

The Following two chapters analyze the two most famous early Christian manuscript collections; chapter four “A Discovery ‘Which Threw All Others in the Shade’: The Beatty Biblical Papyri” (p. 116-156), and, the longest chapter in the book, chapter five “An Elusive Collection: The Bodmer Papyri” (p. 157-215). Tapping into the findings of his own archival research, Nongbri attempts to correct misinformation surrounding these famous book collections.

The generally accepted dates of several of the codices in these collections are re-examined and challenged. The Beatty Codex VI (Number, Deuteronomy) is generally thought to be the oldest manuscript in the collection (ca. 150 CE) Nongbri (citing E. G. Turner) opts for a date range of 2nd to 3rd century, stating that “Greater precision on the basis of paleography alone is simply not possible” (p. 150). The date assigned to Beatty Codex I (P45), which has recently been re-evaluated as belonging to the 3rd century by Orsini and Clarysse, is also questioned. This is because, it is argued, “our corpus of dateable samples is taken almost entirely from rolls, and our concern here is a codex. The unstated working assumption is that the dateable rolls give a full representation of the span of time this type of writing was in use, even though the roll format was largely supplanted by the codex by the end of the fourth century” (p. 138). Though Beatty Codex II (P46) has been recently dated to 200-225 CE, Nongbri contends that “no truly compelling securely dated parallels for the script of the Pauline Epistles codex have been proposed” (p. 144).

Referring now to the Bodmer collection, it is argued “that the antiquity of P.Bodmer II [P66] has been exaggerated” (p. 199). This conclusion is supported mainly by the similarity in appearance of P.Bodmer II to P.Bodmer XX and Schøyen MS 193 (a codex believed to be originally part of the ancient collection), both in the squarish shape and general appearance of script (p. 199). Nongbri also contends for a fourth century date for P. Bodmer XIV-XV (P75) by comparing the elongated codex shape (width half the height) and construction with other fourth century codices in the Bodmer collection and the Nag Hammadi Codices (p. 199-202). Along with codicology, Nongbri appeals to the broadly similar appearance of the scripts with two securely dated letters from the fourth century, P.Herm 4 and 5 (p. 202).

Chapter six, “Excavating Christian Litter and Literature at Oxyrhynchus,” introduces the history of the late 19th and early 20th century expeditions to Oxyrhynchus, Egypt by Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt (p. 216-246). Personal correspondence, contemporary news reports and magazine articles are brought to bear. The chapter lists out all the Christian papyri discovered at Oxyrhynchus according to genre and frequency of pieces found and the dates assigned to them (p. 231-233). Nongbri observes that there is a notable decrease in the number of papyri from the third to the fourth centuries, which, according to him, seems at odds with the rise in power of the Christian Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century (p. 244). He surmises that this may indicate that the dates assigned to the “New Testament” material are being artificially “pulled early” (p. 245) When the texts of undated literary Christian codices are compared with these securely dated re-used rolls, it results in an artificially early date (p. 244-245).

In the final chapter, “Fabricating a Second-Century Codex of the Four Gospels,” Nongbri recounts the history of the New Testament fragments P64+P67+P4. The story begins with the “discovery” of a Philo codex allegedly found bricked up in a wall (p. 248). The codex was thought to have been placed there in hiding during the “Diocletianic persecutions” in 292 CE (p. 249). Fragments of a papyrus codex containing Luke were found with the Philo codex, commonly known as P4 (p. 249). Because it was thought that the Lukan fragments were part of the binding cartonnage of the Philo codex, then P4 must date before (likely sometime earlier) than the late third century (p. 249). When fragments of Matthew (P64, P67) were thought to originate from the same codex, Colin H. Roberts postulated these as evidence of a second century four Gospel codex (p. 254).

Through his own archival research, Nongbri discovered that the (allegedly) securely dated Philo codex was not necessarily recovered in the wall of a house in Koptos Egypt. Rather, the information likely (Nongbri surmises) came from a local antiquities dealer after it was bought on the market and thus its provenance is unknown (p. 262). Thus, the date of the Lukan fragments (P4) are not as secure as once thought and this throws the entire second century four Gospel codex theory into doubt (p. 263-267). Based on the use of ekthesis in these Gospel fragments, Nongbri postulated that they should be dated closer to the fourth century where “similar techniques of division of the text are known to occur in manuscripts generally assigned to the fourth and fifth centuries” (p. 267).

Though Nongbri’s extreme caution towards dating manuscripts too early and with an unrealistically narrow range is appropriate in the specific cases he examines, at times his suspicion comes across as overdone. In several places this skepticism undercuts his own attempts at assigning later dates to some of the manuscripts discussed.

In the first chapter, “The Early Christian Book,” he argues that the differences in codex construction, the style of stitching, the use of single or multi-quires, “do not, however, have any bearing on the dates of our surviving copies” (p. 36). He writes that,

The variety of construction techniques of surviving codices from Egypt suggests that the rise and spread of the codex format was a drawn-out process involving both diffusion of the technology from one locality to another and independent experimentation at the local level. Refinement of construction techniques at any given time would have varied widely from place to place. (p. 36)

Yet, at several places in the book Nongbri appeals to codicology as a gauge of date (cf. p. 80). For example, when suggesting that the antiquity of P. Bodmer II (P66) has been exaggerated, Nongbri highlights the similarity of the squarish shape and the construction of P. Bodmer II with the squarish shape and similarity in binding of other fourth century codices in the collection (p. 195-199). If codicology has no “bearing on the dates” then the similarity in shape and binding between the Bodmer papyri should not be marshalled as evidence of a later date for P. Bodmer II or any other undated manuscripts (see also p. 202-206, et al.).

Nongbri helpfully distills dating by palaeography down to its primary assumption that “Graphic similarity equates to temporal similarity,” and this comparison is best made against securely dated writings samples rather than against other non-securely dated examples (p. 57-58). In the second chapter, Nongbri expresses skepticism towards dating strictly by palaeography, listing out reasons that “challenge the key assumption I mentioned at the outset—that graphic similarity necessarily equates to chronological similarity” (p. 64). In a later footnote, when discussing whether palaeography is strictly a “science,” Nongbri writes, “What is more certain in terms of social history is that the modern academic discipline of palaeography emerged out of the aesthetic interests and connoisseurship of elite circles in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries” (p. 296, note 20).

If palaeography, however, is merely a product of eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’ anachronistically applying different classifications to ancient scripts, then scholars cannot use palaeography to assign dates to undated manuscripts. It appears that Nongbri intends to bring this point home throughout the book, yet he consistently uses the graphic similarity between scripts as a criterion for assigning later dates to “Biblical” manuscripts (cf. p. 202).

With this level of contradiction and circular argumentation readers will likely come away from God’s Library scratching their heads and asking themselves, ‘Can palaeography be used to date undated manuscripts, or not? Can codicology be used to date un-dated manuscripts, or not?’

Despite these glaring problems, there is much to like about this book. The Prologue (if one reads Prologues), is well written and draws the reader into the book. The work is supported by extensive archival research that is both illuminating and, in the case of some manuscripts and ancient collections, paradigm shifting. The footnotes and bibliography are extensive which will likely make this book the standard guide for future studies in the provenance of manuscripts and collections. There are plenty of maps, diagrams, charts, and images of manuscripts that aid the reader in navigating the often times unfamiliar locations and visualizing these ancient books as artifacts.

Finally, much of the skepticism and warnings of overconfidence in dating ancient manuscripts is appropriate and warranted. Nongbri does well at highlighting issues with assigning the date of a manuscript solely on palaeography. He gives several examples from the past century of scholars attributing dates to manuscripts with little or no support from securely dated writing samples or instances of the same manuscripts being assigned widely differing dates. Christian apologists, theologians of every stripe, and historians of early Christianity should heed Nongbri’s warnings and apply an extra dose of caution and transparency when drawing conclusions or basing arguments on these early Christian books.

A Text Without Martha: Implications of an Earlier Textual Layer of John’s Gospel

In a 2017 issue of Harvard Theological Review, Elizabeth Schrader (PhD student at Duke) published an article postulating an earlier textual layer of John’s Gospel that highlighted (to a greater extent than traditionally thought) the sister of Lazarus, Mary, in the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.

Elizabeth Schrader, “Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the Second Century?” Harvard Theological Review 110.3 (2017): 360-392.

"This study examines the text transmission of the figure of Martha of Bethany throughout the Fourth Gospel in over one hundred of our oldest extant Greek and Vetus Latina witnesses. the starting point for this study is instability around Martha in our most ancient witnesses of John 11-12, Papyrus 66. By looking at P66's idiosyncrasies and then comparing them to the Fourth Gospel's greater manuscript transmission, I hope to demonstrate that Martha's presence shows significant textual instability throughout the Lazarus episode, and thus that this Lukan figure may not have been present in a predecessor text form of the Fourth Gospel that circulated in the second century." (Schrader, 360)

As Schrader notes in the introduction to the article, much of the argument depends on the textual idiosyncrasies of P66. In response, this post will focus on just two readings as they are found in P66. At John 11:1 Schrader argues that Mary was the only name originally present in the Lazarus story in this verse. And at John 11:3 it is Mary who allegedly sent word to Jesus and not Mary and Martha.

P66 showing duplication of μαριας and correction to μαρθας (circled in red) at John 11:1

The P66* reading in John 11:1, μαριας και μαριας, could be explained by dittography, or an error caused by a backward leap (as Schrader acknowledges on 362). Royse notes that slips involving a backward leap or dittography are quite common to the scribe of P66 (Schrader only mentions the dittography’s noted by Royse at John 1:17b, 12:26a, and 14:3; Schrader, 362). Royse notes backward leaps at John 3:3, 3:31b, 7:44a, 8:42b, 9:41a, 9:41b, 10:38b, 13:20c (either a backward or a forward leap) 13:32, 14:10b, 14:12a, 14:12c, 16:25 (Royse, 422-432). And this list is not exhaustive.

Schrader acknowledges this, but argues that this scribal slip and correction must be explained in light of “the surrounding reading of P66” (Schrader, 363). I find it interesting that at 10:38, just a few verses before John 11:1, on the recto of the same page, we find a very similar phenomena. The scribe did a backward leap and began to rewrite the same words (εν εμοι ... εν τω πατρι; Royse, 430). Because of the close proximity of these scribal slips (and the frequency of their occurrence throughout), it seems more likely that the repeating of μαριας was due to a backward leap and a repeating of the name, rather than the bleeding through of an earlier text form of John with Martha excluded.

P66 at John 10:38 showing the dittography and correction of εν εμοι ... εν τω πατρι

The changing of the pronoun from masculine to feminine in John 11:1 (αυτου > αυτης) after the dittography of μαριας could again be explained by the scribal peculiarities of P66. The scribe alters the gender of a pronoun at 4:11a, a noun at 15:19a, and the case of several pronouns at 6:7b, 15:13 (this is not an exhaustive list).

The original reading at John 11:3 is unique in that “P66 is the only extant witness that actually transcribes the name of a single sister” (Schrader, 370). The scribe of P66 originally wrote, απεστιλεν ουν μαρ[?]α προς αυτον λεγουσα (Mary/Martha then sent toward him saying). In a complicated series of erasures and corrections, the scribe changed the text to read απεστιλαν ουν αι αδελφαι προς αυτον λεγουσαι (The sisters then sent toward him saying).

Schrader notes that “this reading is crucial” to her thesis that the story of Lazarus originally only included Mary and Martha was added by the scribe of P66. Though Schrader does indicate that scholars are divided as to which name was originally present in this verse, it is very difficult to discern from the images which name was initially written by the scribe (Schrader, 367-368). Though Schrader and other scholars contend for μαρια as the original reading, μαρθα could have just as easily been the initial transcription.

P66 at John 11:3 showing deletion and correction

P66 at John 11:3 showing possible initial reading μαρια

P66 at John 11:3 showing possible initial reading μαρθα

The initial reading of μαρθα can very easily be explained as harmonization. One characteristic noted by Schrader is that “[i]t seems likely that there was an early harmonization of the Johannine Lazarus story to the Lukan story of Mary and Martha” (Schrader, 391). Both Colwell and Royse recognize a tendency to harmonize readings with remote parallels in other Gospels (Colwell, 112-114; Royse, 536-544). It is quite possible that the scribe was harmonizing the story to Luke 10:38-42 where Martha is quite prominent. One does not have to go as far as Luke’s gospel for harmonization parallels. It is also possible that the scribe was harmonizing to a point later in the story where Martha runs out to meet Jesus at John 11:21 (cf. 11:30). I find it interesting that at none of these places does the scribe of P66 attempt to remove the prominence of Martha who takes center stage in the narrative. Complicated and lengthy erasures and corrections are not uncommon for the scribe of P66. A "confusing" series of errors of backward leaps, erasures, and corrections made in scribendo are found at 7:33 (Royse, 422). A very similar occurrence is located at 13:20c (Royse, 431).

I think that, in the case of P66, it is wise to heed the words of Ernest Colwell;

“Wildness in copying is the outstanding characteristic of P66. This makes it very difficult to decide whether particular readings are due to editorializing on the part of the scribe or rather are due to his general laxity and inefficiency.” (Colwell, 121)

In response to these types of allegations, Schrader writes,

“I believe that the changes around Martha in P66 cannot simply be dismissed as scribal mechanical errors, because there are so many strange variants around Martha throughout the text transmission of the Fourth Gospel, as well as patristic quotations and ancient extracanonical texts.” (Schrader, 391)

I think that, at least in the case of P66, a better explanation for the unusual readings are the blunders and slips peculiar to the scribe of P66.

Though I do not wish to comment on the rest of the article content and argument at this time, I do think that Schrader's paper is a detailed and thorough piece of research. She has effectively used the data made available in online editions and other online tools that, I am sure, will be a model for future researchers.
_______________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Royse, James R., "Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri." NTTSD 36. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Colwell, Ernest C., "Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75," pages 106-124 in "Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament." NTTS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

The Date of P.Bodmer II (P66)

Detail of PSI V 446 (133-137 CE)

P.Bodmer II, also known as P66, is a Greek papyrus codex of the Gospel of John. Because of its age and extent of preservation it has been considered an important early material artifact of Christian book culture. Ever since its publication by Victor Martin in 1956 it has been assigned a date from 150-250 CE and recently by Brent Nongbri (see previous post here and here) into the 4th century as well.

Title of the gospel of John in P.Bodmer II (P66)

Over on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, noted palaeographer Pasquale Orsini wrote a helpful guest post clarifying some issues of palaeography that surfaced during an interchange between Peter Malik and Brent Nongbri (here, here, and here). I also interacted with Orsini in the comments section of the blog who then helpfully responded. My question had to do with the validity of comparing the hand [that is, the style of handwriting] of P.Bodmer II with the 4th century (securely dated) papyri P.Cair.Isid.2 and P.Lond.1920. In the blog post Orsini had agreed with Nongbri's method of comparing these two papyri with that of P.Bodmer II in order to expand that date of P66 into the 4th century. It was my impression, however, that the overall structure and course of the pen strokes in forming some of the letters (alph [α], mu [μ], delta [δ], for example) between all three papyri were different enough for me to question this comparison. Orsini helpfully responded by stating,

"In a "stylistic class" the differences in structure of some letters are common, because the graphic phenomenon has not been "normalized" according to a scheme (as it happens in a "canon" or "normative majuscule"). The differences observed by you are part of this variability of a "stylistic class". The elements of the style (for example round shapes with loops, oblique and horizontal strokes prolonged, some letters written in a single sequence) prevail over the structure of the individual letters."

Detail of P.Cair.Isid. 2 (298 CE)

The "stylistic class" Orsini is referring to is the "Alexandrian stylistic class" of scripts. This type of hand came into use sometime during the second century, a typical early example being PSI V 446 (Cavallo, 129). This can be securely dated to 133-137 because it is an edict of the prefect Marcus Petronius (Orsini and Clarysse, 458). Both P.Cair.Isid.2 and P.Lond.1920 are considered as belonging to the "Alexandrian stylistic class." P.Bodmer XX on the other hand (another papyri Nongbri used in his re-dating of P66) is considered as belonging another style of script and thus is not a suitable comparison to P.Bodmer II (i.e. apples and oranges).

To the casual observer, the variations between the letters may seem slight and petty. For example, if one considers the differences between their own unique signature and the hand writing of someone else writing the same name, the variations are slight and are often subconsciously implemented by the writer. The same is most likely true of the scribe who copied P.Bodmer II. The style of script used has a lot to do with the manner in which a scribe was trained to write (On this, see, Cribiore, 114-116). By examining securely dated papyri that use a specific style of writing one can determine a general time period the script was in use. In this case, using PSI V 446 as the rough starting point and P.Lond. 1920 at the extreme end, the "Alexandrian stylistic class" was in use around 200 years. If these comparisons are fully valid, then one can set a rough date for P.Bodmer II at somewhere around 150-350 CE. This does not mean that P.Bodmer II is an exact match with each papyri only that this style of writing was in use for roughly this time length.

In order to better illustrate these slight differences in script between these four papyri (PSI V 446, P.Bodmer II, P.Lond. 1920, P.Bodmer XX, and P.Cair. Isid. 2), I laid out images of the letters of each of the papyri side by side for ease of comparison. Pay particular attention to the alpha, delta, kappa, mu, and phi. The differences in ductus and shading are slight but noticeable. I will not argue here for a specific date for P.Bodmer II, but it is obvious when comparing the letters below that P.Bodmer XX is not the same style as the rest of the papyri. 

_______________________________

Bibliography

Cavallo, Guglielmo. "Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri." Pages 101-148 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Cribiore, Rafaella "Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt" (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1996).

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. "I Papiri Bodmer: scritture e libri." Adamantius 21 (2015): 60-78.

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

Teaching Aids for Ancient Christian Readers

Some of the earliest copies of the New Testament writings were copied in such a way that they aided the reader in their task of deciphering the scriptio continua. Bookrolls from the Roman world (1st -3rd century CE) which contained works of literature had very little by way of assistance for the reader. Take for example P. Lond. Lit. 134 (ca. 200 CE), a copy of  Hyperides, In Philippidem. It has a steady stream of letters uninterrupted by spaces or any type of punctuation.

P. Lond. Lit. 134. (Johnson, "Bookrolls and Scribes," 400)

Those fortunate children in antiquity with access to an education had to be taught methods of deciphering this system of writing. Grammarians (ancient teachers) facilitated this instruction by creating models of ancient works such as Homer's Iliad that incorporated spaces between words and markings differentiating syllables and sense units. One example of a teacher's model is a wooden tablet from Roman Egypt that contains Homer's Iliad (3rd century). The wooden slate uses spaces between words and markings to assist beginning readers in comprehending the text.

AM 13839 (Cribiore, "Gymnastics of the Mind," 135)

Similar phenomena of reading aid can be detected in some early copies of New Testament writings. For example, spaces between words can clearly be seen throughout P46 (2nd/3rd century), a collection of Paul's epistles.

The beginning of Galatians in P46

Spaces and limited punctuation can be seen in P66 (2nd/3rd century), a copy of John's Gospel. 

The beginning of the Gospel of John in P66.

There are some interesting parallels between early New Testament manuscripts such as P46 and P66 and teachers models such as AM 13839. Both types of documents employ clear and legible scripts, give generous space between lines, and use spacing between words and sense units. These features have been highlighted elsewhere on this blog (here, and here). It has already been noted that reading aids seem to reveal that these Christian books were produced for less than capable readers.
Coupled with this, perhaps the presence of reader's aids in copies of New Testament manuscripts also reveal another parallel with teacher's models; that of instruction. Just like teacher's models were used almost exclusively in the context of learning, perhaps these Christian manuscripts were produced so that they could be used primarily within teaching contexts.
_____________________

Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Johnson, William A., Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

P75, P66, and the Useful Life of Papyrus Codices

The Summer 2016 issue of The Journal of Biblical Literature published a new piece by Brent Nongbri, a researcher at Macquarie University of Sydney, Australia: 

"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): 405-37.

In this essay, 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. This new proposed date is 100-150 years later than the traditional ca. 200-250 CE date. His essay follows a similar line of argumentation as in his previous article which contended for a fourth century date for P66 as well.

“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.

One interesting line of evidence which Nongbri brings to bear in these articles is that both codices appear to originate from the same ancient library/collection, the so-called Bodmer collection. A large portion of the collection dates into the 4th and 5th centuries. Therefore, Nongbri argues, this is evidence that both P66 and P75 date into the 4th century as well.

The Useful Life of Papyrus Codices.

I do not wish to debate the particulars of Nongbri's assessment, however, what I thought interesting was that the latest pieces included in the Bodmer collection date to the 5th century. And, if some of the additional papyri that Robinson contended were part of the assemblage as well, then the latest pieces date into the 6th or 7th centuries ("The Limits," pg. 25). What this means is that the manuscripts could not have been deposited in their location any earlier than the 5th century (probably the latter part of that century). Even if one agrees with Nongbri's 4th century date for P66 and P75, then these codices were in use for at least 100-150 years before they were discarded, add another 200 years if the collection was deposited in the 7th century. If the traditional dating holds for these codices (early third century) then we are looking at a useful life of 200-250 years, or, if the Bodmer papyri were deposited in the 7th century, 400-450 years of useful life.

In his masterful study of Roman libraries, George Houston noted the useful life of papyrus bookrolls:

"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)

The useful life of P66 and P75 appear to fall within the upper end of Houston's assessment. However, it is important to note that Houston's observations were specifically in regard to bookrolls and not codices (for the difference between bookrolls and codices read here). In the case of the Bodmer papyri, we have at least one instance from antiquity that confirms Houston's assessment with regard to the useful life of the papyrus codex as well.

The Marks of a Long Useful Life.
 
Nongbri notes that P75 had been rebound and repaired sometime in antiquity and bore other marks of continued use ("Reconsidering," pg. 431-432). Besides the evidence of rebinding, P75 has several interesting marginal notations that are not made by the original copyist's hand. Nongbri notes that at least two of these marginal notations use a 4th or 5th century majuscule hand ("Reconsidering," pg. 432-433).

P75 Marginal Note in Later Majuscule Hand

P75 Marginal Note in Later Majuscule Hand

Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with Nongbri's dating of P66 and P75 into the 4th century, he has teased out some very interesting details that highlight the long useful life of papyrus codices. Those who read them in antiquity obviously valued them. They repaired these books and rebound them. They studied their texts while making notes in the margin. These codices are more than just husks that carried texts, they are ancient artifacts that inform us on how early Christians used and valued these books.
(For more discussion on the useful life of papyrus books, read here, and read here)

________________________
Bibliography

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

Nongbri, Brent. "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): 405-37.

____________. “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.

The Staurogram and The Epistle of Barnabas: Further Discussion

In a previous post, the comments of Dr. Brent Nongbri in reference to the staurogram and its place in a third century manuscript were taken up. At issue is whether Christian scribes of the second and third centuries were experimenting with images of Jesus on the cross in their art and worship practices. Dr. Nonbgri argued that,

"At the very least, such experimentation with cruciform imagery [in the staurogram] would appear less out of place in the fourth century than in the late second or early third century. (pg. 33-34)"

These observations are striking when looking at the many references in early Christian writings of the second and third century; Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. These authors mention the cross and cross shapes as venerated symbols of Christian identity. Yet, it is argued by Nongbri, each of these early Christian examples are merely allusions to the cross and its shape and not to the image of the crucified Jesus, which scholars purport the staurogram to be.
There was an oft repeated story in early Christian literature that may serve to illustrate that the image of Jesus as a crucified figure on the cross was a familiar Christian icon. In the Epistle of Barnabas, reference is made to the story of Israel defeating the armies of Amalek in Exodus 17:8-13. In this account, Moses lifted up his hands as a sign to the Lord; when his hands were held aloft, Israel was victorious, when his hands fell to his side, Amalek was victorious. Aaron and Hur eventually held Moses' hands aloft as he grew weary and the Israelites won the battle. In light of this story, the Epistle of Barnabas (70-135 CE) wrote;

"Once again you have a reference about the cross and about him who was destined to be crucified. And again he speaks to Moses, when war was being waged against Israel by foreigners, and in order that he might remind those being attacked that they had been handed over to death because of their sins, the Spirit says to the heart of Moses that he should make a symbol of the cross and of him who was destined to suffer because, he is saying, unless they place their hope in him, war shall be waged against them forever. Therefore Moses piled one shield upon another in the midst of the battle, and standing high above them all he stretched out his hands, and so Israel was again victorious. But whenever he lowered them, the men began to be killed. Why so? So that they might learn that they cannot be saved unless they place their hope in him. (12:1-3)"

There are some aspects of this story that bear reflection. First, the Epistle of Barnabas assumes that Moses raised his hands horizontally, in the shape of the cross, and this is mentioned in such a way that this must have been a familiar Christian interpretation of this story. And second, the Epistle of Barnabas specifically references this as a symbol of the crucified Jesus and not just of the cross. At one point Barnabas uses the word "suffer" (πασχειν) (12:2) and the middle/passive infinitive (σταυρουσθαι) to refer to this event as a reference to Jesus (12:1). It is clear that Barnabas was viewing the imagery of Moses standing with arms outstretched as a visual representation of Jesus suffering on the cross.

Moses with outstretched hands as a symbol of Jesus on the cross

This story in Barnabas is set in the midst of several allegorical references to the cross that were found in the familiar passages and stories of the Old Testament. At Barnabas 8:1,5; 9:7; 11:1,8; and 13:5. In each of these other references the cross is mentioned as a stand alone representation of salvation with no visualization of the crucified Jesus. However, at 12:1-3, specific mention is made to the imagery of Moses with outstretched hands as a visual representation of the suffering Jesus on the cross.
Though, there is no specific reference to scribes taking this iconography and creating a staurogram, the impetus for doing so is already present in Barnabas some 80-100 years before it is found, represented by the staurogram, in the texts of P66, P45, and P75. The reverence for Jesus and the cross was already tied to a textual representation in the nomina sacra at Barn. 9:7-8. It takes no stretch of the imagination to conclude that a visual representation of Jesus on the cross, as found at Barn. 12:1-3, would find expression in a staurogram.

_______________ 
 

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Longenecker, Bruce W. The Cross Before Constantine The Early Life of a Christian Symbol. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.

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.