A New Book on the Staurogram

 

I just finished reading and writing up a review in The Journal of Theological Studies for a new book about the staurogram. I am not sure when my review will appear in print, and I won't reproduce the text of it here, but I thought that I would give a few more detailed highlights from this wonderful new monograph.

Dieter T. Roth, The Staurogram: Writing a Picture of the Crucified Christ (The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries, 9. London, New York: T&T Clark, 2026).

This book is on the shorter side of scholarly monographs, at only 190 pages, the body of text only occupying the first 152 pages, and the bibliography and indices occupying the last 38 pages, and thus it makes for a surprisingly quick read. Don't let the brevity of this book fool you, it packs a significant punch in the amount of detailed information that it gives you. I don't want to provide a detailed, chapter by chapter overview, rather, I wanted to point out just one of the many insightful observations that Roth makes in the work.

In chapter 2 of the book, Roth surveys some famous graffito and gem carvings/inscriptions that bear depictions of crucifixion that closely resemble descriptions by Justin Martyr and Tertullian. I will only give two of the examples here.

First is the Puteoli Graffito, which likely dates from the second century, and portrays a crudely drawn figure on a cross (see this BAS article here, and this article here). Ἀλκίμιλα (Alkimila) is written on the top left side of the inscription, which is probably a female name (pp. 53-54).

 

The second is the Alexamenos Graffito, which has been dated to the third century (see previous post here). Sometime when Emperor Caligula's former palace was used as a school for training slaves, someone made a crude drawing, mocking the crucified God of someone named Alexamenos, depicting a crucified donkey and someone standing before it (pp. 55-57). The inscription reads "Alexamenos worships [his] god" (Ἀλεξάμενος σέβετε θεόν).

 

A common feature of these very early depictions, argues Roth, is that they feature a crux commissa, a T-shaped cross. This was the shape of the cross described by those who lived in the pre-Constantinian period such as Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria (see this previous post here). This is different than the crux immissa, or Latin cross, which has the upper shaft that extends beyond the cross bar. This Latin cross became predominate after the Constantinian period (p. 119).

Roth has noted that in each of these early depictions of crucifixion, the profiled head of the crucified figure sits directly above the tau cross bar (pp. 112-113). The manner in which the staurogram is drawn in the early gospel papyri, for example, in P66 and P75, the loop of the rho (which represents the head of the crucified Christ) sits directly atop the T crossbar.

Staurogram in P75 at 1A.11r. [ https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Hanna.1(Mater.Verbi) ]

Staurogram in P66 at John 19:18 (page 141)

One can see that the staurogram in these papyri look very similar to the crude drawings above. Roth notes that this is in contrast to later staurograms where the rho sits higher above the crossbar, looking more like a crux immissa, a Latin cross, that was much more common after Constantine. For example, look at these fourth century examples of the staurogram.

Staurogram from the end of Isaiah in Codex Sinaiticus (Q46.f3r), fourth century

 

Staurogram in the Jung Codex (Nag Hammadi Codex 1), fourth century

Notice how each of these staurograms have the rho sitting above the crossbar, which looks closer to a Latin cross that became more prominent in the post-Constantinian period. Roth makes, at the very least, an interesting observation that the staurograms in the early gospel codices likely represent early, pre-Constantinian depictions of the cross. This is not a hard and fast dating rule but is definitely food for thought when considering the dating of P66 and P75.

 

Forthcoming in The Journal of Theological Studies: Moses as a Symbol of the Crucified Jesus: An Early Reference to the Staurogram?

Early on in my studies, I came across Larry Hurtado's book The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. It was deeply informative and fascinating to learn of all the features that were characteristic of Christian books; the codex, readers aids, and the nomina sacra (among other distinctives). I used his work as the basis for a detailed adult Sunday School class that I gave at my home Church over a period of several weeks that covered the information found in The Earliest Christian Artifacts. I had the opportunity to share this with Hurtado one time at SBL and he was thrilled. He said that one of his goals for writing that book was to inform the every day Christian of the rich heritage of the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. 

Hurtado was also well known for his work on the staurogram, to which he dedicated a chapter in his book. I too became fascinated with the nomina sacra (thanks to Hurtado), and in particular this curious tau-rho ligature. I was convinced by Hurtado's arguments that this device was used as a sort of crude pictogram of the crucified Jesus. Eventually this curiosity led to me writing an article on the origin of this device. After an earlier draft version was rejected by JBL, I submitted my manuscript to The Journal of Theological Studies and I recently learned that it was accepted for publication. I wish that Hurtado was still with us because I would love to talk about the staurogram with him over a cup of coffee.

I am not sure when the article will appear in print. Until that time, here is the title and an abstract to whet your appetite.

Moses as a Symbol of the Crucified Jesus: An Early Reference to the Staurogram?

Abstract:
This article investigates the origins of the Christian use of the staurogram, a ligature formed by the superimposed Greek letters tau and rho, as a symbol of the crucified Jesus, in three early New Testament gospel codices; P66, P75, and P45. Evidence is presented from the Epistle of Barnabas 12.1-3, which interprets Moses’s outstretched arms during the battle against Amalek as a prefiguring of Jesus’s crucifixion, demonstrating that the veneration of cruciform imagery was already present within the imagination of some Christian communities. This suggests that all the necessary ingredients and catalysts were present for the appropriation of the tau-rho ligature at the beginning of the second century. The presence of the staurogram in the Beratius Nikatoras inscription, several Christian gemstone rings, Codex Sinaiticus, and the “Jung Codex,” and the nomen sacrum evidence from a recently discovered Frankfurt Silver amulet, are used to construct a chronological framework for the adoption of the staurogram in the New Testament gospel papyri. This article argues that there is good reason to believe staurograms could have appeared in manuscripts of the canonical gospels as early as the end of the second century and were adopted as standalone pictograms by the fourth century

Key words: staurogram, nomina sacra, Epistle of Barnabas, Ephrem the Syrian, Frankfurt Silver Amulet, P45, P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus

 

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).

The Frankfurt Amulet, The Epistle of Barnabas, and Nomina Sacra

Inscription digitally unrolled. Credit: LEIZA. / Prof. Dr. Markus Scholz

News of a paradigm shifting find hit popular news outlets late in 2024. An ancient Roman cemetery has been known since the 19th century in the Roman town of Nida near modern day Frankfurt, Germany. In grave number 134, a man aged around 40 years was excavated in 2018 and a small amulet was discovered underneath the chin of the skeletal remains. The grave goods such as an incense burner and a clay jug allow for a date range of around 230-260 or 270 CE.

Rolled silver amulet, ca. 230-260 or 270 CE. Credit: U. Dettmar, AMF

The amulet was worn around the neck and contained a rolled up silver foil with an inscription in Latin. Though the artifact was discovered in 2018, the foil was only recently "digitally unrolled." The Latin text is interesting because it has several Greek elements (see image below for Latin transcription).

The Latin text of the Amulet translated into English reads:

(In the name?) of St. Titus.
Holy, holy, holy!
In the name of Jesus Christ, Son of God!
The lord of the world
resists to the best of his [ability?]
all seizures(?)/setbacks(?).
The god(?) grants well-being
Admission.
This rescue device(?) protects
the person who
surrenders to the will
of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
since before Jesus Christ
bend all knees: the heavenly ones,
the earthly and
the subterranean, and every tongue
confess (to Jesus Christ). (Translation from Archaeology Mag)

The trisagion, the "Holy, Holy, Holy" is written in the Latin alphabet but uses the Greek word for Holy "AGIOS AGIOS AGIOS" (ἅγιος). Also, there are two places in the text where a nomen sacrum for "Jesus" (Ἰησοῦς) and for "Christ" (Χριστός) are used. The text also contains a loose quotation of Philippians 2:10-11 strongly indicating an early and wide acceptance of this Pauline letter as scripture and authentically Pauline. Early because the wearer likely had worn the amulet for some time before he had died and was buried with it. Widely accepted because the letter to the Philippians circulated in Greek and would have had to have been translated in Latin, then circulated as a Latin copy before it's text was incorporated into the text of the amulet. 

Edit: Another scenario occurred to me after initially publishing this blog post. There is a possibility that this is an old hymn that had circulated very early in Christian communities. It has long been thought that this passage in Philippians was a hymn that Paul had incorporated into his letter to the Philippians.

Close-up detail of IH and XP of Nomina Sacra

What is very interesting here is the choice of nomen sacrum for Jesus, it uses suspension of the Greek word for Jesus, ιη(σους), leaving the majuscule, letters ΙΗ. It is intriguing that the iota is superimposed over the eta and is extended vertically to such a degree that it intersects with the customary supralinear stroke so that it forms a cross. All three instances of the nomen sacrum for Jesus are written in this manner so the cross shape appears to have been intentional. Another aspect of this nomen sacrum for Jesus is that it is the earliest known that is mentioned in a literary text. In a well known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas 9:7-8 the author refers to this scribal convention.

"Learn abundantly, therefore, children of love, about everything: Abraham, who first instituted circumcision, looked forward in the spirit to Jesus when he circumcised, having received the teaching of the three letters. For it says: "And Abaraham circumcised ten and eight and three hundred men of his household." What, then, is the knowledge that was given to him? Observe that it mentions the "ten and eight" first, and then after an interval the "three hundred." As for the "ten and eight," the I is ten and the H is eight; thus you have "Jesus." And because the cross, which is shaped like the T, was destined to convey grace, it mentions also the "three hundred." So he reveals Jesus in the two letters, and the cross in the other one. He who placed within us the implanted gift of his covenant understands." (Barn. 9.7-8; Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 299)

This is referring to a story out of Genesis 14:14 where Abraham takes 318 servants to rescue Lot, where Barnabas see symbolic significance in the number of the servants. In the Greek number system 300 was designated by the Greek letter tau, a "T" shaped letter, and 18 was designated by the Greek letter combination IH. The author of Barnabas is obviously referring to the nomen sacrum for Jesus. Larry Hurtado has argued that this nomen sacrum was the first and led to the widespread Christian practice that in later centuries, expanded to include more sacred names. Though no Greek letter tau is present in the Frankfurt amulet, the scribe created a cross with the iota and supralinear stroke. Barnabas is typically dated to sometime before the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 CE, so this is a very early example of something like what we see 100 years later in the Frankfurt Amulet inscription. What is unique in this amulet is that this Greek nomen sacrum is found in a Latin text. This indicates that by the mid third century CE this nomen sacrum had been in use for some time and had been transfered into the Latin text.

Clement of Alexandria mentions this same story in Genesis 14:14 about 200 CE and derives similar symbolic meaning.

"As then in astronomy we have Abraham as an instance, so also in arithmetic we have the same Abraham.“For, hearing that Lot was taken captive, and having numbered his own servants, born in his house, 318,” he defeats a very great number of the enemy. They say, then, that the character representing 300 is, as to shape, the type of the Lord’s sign, and that the Iota and the Eta indicate the Saviour’s name; that it was indicated, accordingly, that Abraham’s domestics were in salvation, who having fled to the Sign and the Name became lords of the captives, and of the very many unbelieving nations that followed them." (Strom. 6.11; ANF 2:500)

The cross, or "T" shaped symbol, had become so familiar in Alexandrian Christianity that Clement could simply refer to it as "the Lord's sign." Clement refers to this symbolism as if it had been understood in this way for some time. So common in fact that some fifty or so years later it was found way up on the northern frontier of Roman Empire in a grave in the town of Nida 1,800 miles away.

(For further discussion on this passage in Barnabas, see the previous blog post here.)

Screen grab from 25:41 of YouTube Frankfurt Press Release

____________________________________________

Anna Lisa Lüft, "Archäologischer Sensationsfund. "Der älteste Christ nördlich der Alpen war Frankfurter"," hessenschau.de. 11 December 2024.

Dario Radley, "Silver amulet unearthed in Frankfurt grave Is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps," Archaeology News. 15 December 2024.

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

Larry Hurtado, “The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal.” Journal of Biblical Literature 117.4 (1998): 655–73.

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.

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.