NT Manuscripts - Papyri

19/03/2021 NT Manuscripts - Papyri
Manuscritos do Novo Testamento

Papiros
Conteúdo: * P11 * P13 * P20 * P24 * P28 * P39 * P45 * P46 * P48 * P51 * P52 * P54 * P74 * P75 * P78 *
P90 *
Nota: Muitos dos papiros, especialmente os papiros Beatty e Bodmer, foram sujeitos a tanta
discussão que nenhuma tentativa é feita para compilar uma bibliografia completa.
P11
Número de localização/catálogo
São Petersburgo, Biblioteca Nacional Russa Gr. 258A
Conteúdo
1 Corinthians 1:17-22, 2:9-12, 2:14, 3:1-3, 3:5-6, 4:3-5:5, 5:7-8, 6:6: 6: 6 5-9, 6:11-18, 7:3-6, 7:10-14, com
mesmo os versos sobreviventes muitas vezes danificados (tanto que Tischendorf foi incapaz de
dizer se os fragmentos que ele tinha eram de cinco ou seis folhas).
Data/Escriba
Datado paleograficamente até o século VII. Alguns manuais mais antigos dão sua data como o
século V, mas isso foi baseado na comparação com manuscritos não-raciais; uma comparação
com o estilo de papiro resultou na mudança.
Descrição e tipo de texto
Aland e Aland listam P11 como Categoria II. Von Soden listou seu texto como "H ou eu".
Na verdade, o texto de P11 parece bastante ordinário (embora sua natureza fragmentária dificulte
uma determinação firme; o texto da Nestlé, por exemplo, cita-o explicitamente apenas cerca de
quinze vezes, na maioria das vezes com o grupo alexandrino A C 33, mas também, com os textos
bizantinos e "ocidentais"; parece haver algum pequeno parentesco com os membros posteriores
da Família 1739, particularmente 1881. No geral, a melhor descrição de seu texto é
provavelmente "mista", embora a maioria das leituras sejam antigas. Não parece ter parentes
próximos).
A coisa mais notável sobre P11, portanto, não é seu texto, mas sua história: Foi o primeiro papiro
bíblico a ser descoberto (Tischendorf observou-o em 1862), e o único a ser citado em Tischendorf
(como Q).
Outros símbolos usados para este manuscrito
von Soden: a1020

Tischendorf: Qp
Bibliografia
www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/ManuscriptsPapyri.html 1/24
Colações:
Ellwood M. Schofield, Os Fragmentos de Papiro do Novo Testamento
Grego Veja também K. Junack, Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, Vol. 2: Die paulinischen Briefe
Placas de amostra:
Edições que citam:

Citada em todas as edições desde Tischendorf.
Outros Trabalhos:
Kurt Aland, "Neutestamentliche Papyri", NTS 3
P13
Londres (Museu Britânico, Papiro 1532 verso) e em outros lugares (Florença, Cairo). Designado
por seus descobridores P. Oxy. 657
Conteúdo
P13 é um opistógrafo,com
o epítome de Livy no lado
inverso.
Presumivelmente, o
manuscrito continha
originalmente todos os
hebreus (suspeita-se que
ele continha outro
material também; um
pergaminho de
comprimento completo
poderia conter mais do
que o dobro do material
encontrado em hebreus);
ele agora mantém
Hebreus 2:14-5:5, 10:8-22,
10:29-11:13, 11:28-12:17,
com muitas lacunas
menores. Apesar dos
danos, P13 é o papiro
mais extenso fora das
Porções de duas colunas de P13, começando com hebreus
coleções Beatty e
4:2. Observe o dano extenso (que é ainda pior nas metades
Bodmer.
inferiores das colunas). P13 é o único opistógrafo nt extenso.
Observe a numeração sobrevivente na parte superior da
Data/Escriba coluna esquerda.
Datado
paleograficamente para o
terceiro ou quarto século.
Especula-se que o
pergaminho foi levado
para o Egito por um oficial
romano, depois deixado
para trás e reescrito.
Aland e Aland listam P13 como um texto gratuito(?) com "Uma série de leituras distintas, muitas
vezes com P46." Von Soden lista seu tipo de texto como H.
O mais substancial dos papiros oxyrhynchus, P13 também é talvez o mais importante. Como
observado pelos Alands, ele frequentemente se alinha com p46 (e - talvez ainda mais
frequentemente - com B para as porções de hebreus onde ambos existem); Kenyon observa uma
taxa de concordância de 82% entre os dois papiros, com semelhanças mesmo na pontuação e
paginação (embora os dois não possam ter tido o mesmo conteúdo; um pergaminho
simplesmente não poderia conter dez letras paulinas. É possível que a P13 contivesse romanos e
hebreus, nesse ordem, nesse caso seguiu a mesma ordem que a P46). P13 contém uma série de
leituras singulares e subsingulares, mas isso parece ser característico do tipo P46/B. Como este
tipo contém apenas três outras testemunhas (P46, B e o Copta Sahídico), P13 é uma testemunha
extremamente importante que, até agora, não recebeu atenção suficiente (Zuntz, por exemplo,
nunca sequer menciona isso em seu trabalho sobre 1 Coríntios e Hebreus).
von Soden: umP.

Oxy designado 1034. 657 na série Oxyrhynchus Papyri.
Bibliografia
Colagens:
B. P. Grenfell e A. S. Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume 4.
Veja também K. Junack, Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, Vol. 2: Die paulinischen Briefe
Placas de exemplo:
Conforto, Manuscritos da
Bíblia Grega (1 página) Conforto, A Busca pelo Texto Original do Novo Testamento (1 página;
mesma foto de cima)

Citada em todas as edições desde von Soden.
Outras obras:
Conforto, Manuscritos Antigos e Traduções Modernas do Novo Testamento, p. 37
P20
Biblioteca da Universidade de Princeton, Am 4117 - Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1171
Conteúdo
Porções de Tiago 2:19-3:9
Data/Escriba
Datado paleograficamente até o século III.
P20 é um fragmento de uma única folha, 11,5 cm de altura e um pouco menos de 4,5 cm de
largura na largura. É a porção central de uma folha; as bordas esquerda e direita estão
danificadas, assim como a parte inferior. Porções de 20 linhas sobrevivem de cada lado, com
geralmente cerca de doze caracteres por linha. O original parece ter tido cerca de 30-35
caracteres por linha, então a porção sobrevivente é relativamente pequena. A mão é áspera e
apressado aparência; dado o estado do manuscrito, muitas vezes é difícil distinguir as letras.
A pequena quantidade de texto restante dificulta a classificação do manuscrito. Os Alands listam-

no como categoria I, com um texto "normal". Von Soden lista-o como H (alexandrino). Schofeld
relata que ele só sai duas vezes do "grupo B", mas é claro que esta é uma vaga descrição do
grupo. Ainda assim, o sentimento geral é que o manuscrito é alexandrino.
von Soden: a1019
Bibliografia
Colagens:
B. P. Grenfell e A. S. Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, volume 9.
Placas de exemplo:
W. H. P. Hatch, Os Principais Manuscritos Unciais do Novo Testamento

Citado em Von Soden, Merk, Bover, NA26, NA27.
Outras obras:
Conforto, Manuscritos Antigos e Traduções Modernas do Novo Testamento, pp. 39-40
Ellwood M. Schofield, Os Fragmentos do Papiro do Novo Testamento Grego
P24
Centro Newton: Escola Teológica Andover Newton, Biblioteca Franklin Trask, O.P. 1230 (ou seja,
Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1230)
Conteúdo
Porções do Rev. 5:5-8, 6:5-8
Data/Escriba
Datado paleograficamente até o século IV pelas Terras Alands, embora alguns tenham preferido o
século III. A mão é pouco atraente e bastante difícil; o copiista provavelmente não era um escriba
treinado.
P24 é um fragmento de uma única folha, em forma de uma letra muito curta e gorda T virada de
cabeça para baixo. O curso vertical do T contém duas linhas, com apenas cerca de cinco ou seis
letras sobreviventes por linha; a cruz do T contém porções de quatro linhas, com cerca de
dezesseis letras nas duas linhas centrais (e mais bem preservadas). As linhas parecem ter sido
bastante longas - cerca de 30-32 letras por linha - de modo que mesmo as linhas mais bem
preservadas retêm apenas cerca de metade do texto dos versos relevantes.
O fato de o manuscrito ter tantas letras por linha, e tantas linhas por página (há mais de 1600
letras entre rev. 5:6 e rev. 6:6, que a 32 letras por linha nos dá cerca de 50+ linhas por página)
implica um grande tamanho de papiro; Schofield pensou que poderia ter sido uma Bíblia da igreja.
Com apenas cerca de 150 letras para examinar, simplesmente não é possível decidir o tipo de
texto P24. As Alands listam P24 como categoria I, mas isso é, sem dúvida, baseado principalmente
em sua data (os primeiros manuscritos do Apocalipse são tão raros); mesmo que eles não se
aventurem um palpite sobre se seu texto é livre, normal ou rigoroso. O conforto observa que o
manuscrito tem "apenas" três divergências de A, mas no contexto este é um número bastante alto.
Bibliografia
Colagens:
Placas de exemplo:
Comfort, Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, tem placas de todo o
manuscrito.

Citado em Von Soden, Merk, Bover, NA26, NA27.
Outras obras:
Conforto, Manuscritos Antigos e Traduções Modernas do Novo Testamento, pp. 41-42
P28
Berkeley (Museu do Instituto Palestina), Escola de Religião do Pacífico Papyrus 2 - Oxyrhynchus

Papyrus 1596
Conteúdo
Porções de João 6:8-12, 17-22
Data/Escriba
Datado paleograficamente até o século III. A mão inclina-se ligeiramente e parece apressado e
pouco atraente. Os números são explicitados (como, por exemplo, em P66) em vez de escritos
como numerais (como em P75). Seu uso do Nomina Sacra está incompleto; embora achemos
Ihsous abreviado, no versículo 9, encontramos anqrwous escrito.
P28 é um fragmento de uma única folha, dez cm de altura e cinco de largura. A porção
sobrevivente é do fundo da folha, e é quebrada em ambos os lados. Onze linhas sobrevivem no
recto, doze no verso (mais algumas manchas de um décimo terceiro). Cerca de 13-15 letras
sobrevivem em cada linha, de uma média de talvez 32 letras por linha (as linhas parecem ter sido
um pouco irregulares).
Texuto, a maioria dos estudiosos considerou P28 como alexandrino. Os Alands listam-no como
categoria I, com um texto "normal". Grenfell e Hunt descreveram-no como eclético, um pouco
mais próximo do que B (embora, dada a lista de variantes abaixo, acho difícil ver o que os levou a
essa conclusão). A pequena quantidade de texto sobrevivente dificulta qualquer determinação,
mas a descrição "eclética" parece se encaixar; tem diferenças notáveis com quase todos os
manuscritos importantes. A tabela a seguir mostra as leituras notáveis de P28, com seus
apoiadores (o texto é transcrito por Finegan):
Leituras de P28 e apoiadores Outras leituras
6:9 tauta ti estin P28 P66c P75 rell UBS tauta estin D*; ti estin tauta P66* e
6:11 elaben oun (P28 . leben o..) P66 A B elaben de * E F H 33 700 Byz; kai labwn G Q f1 f13
D L W 892 al UBS 565 (579 kai elaben)
6:11 e... risthsas ed... (ou seja, eucaristhsas diedwken A B K L W f1 33 565 700 892
28 66
eucaristhsas edwken ou similar) P P rell UBS; eucaristhsen kai edwken D
(P75 ................. edwken, que poderia
concordar com P28 ou com as
testemunhas posteriores) N G 69 579
6:11 tois anakeimenois (P28 ........... enois tois maqhtais oi de maqetai tois anakeimenois D E F
mas carece de espaço para uma leitura G H K G D Q Y f13 892 Byz
mais longa) P66 P75 * A B L N W f1 33
565 579 1241 al UBS
6:17 kai skotia hdh egegonei (P28 .... katalaben de autous h skotia D
skotia hd...) (P75 ).... skotia hdh
egegonei) rell UBS
6:17 oupw pros autous elhluqei o oupw elhluqei pros autous i Ihsous (L) W (f13 33
Ihsous (P28 ..... hluqei o Is) (P75 hd. .... 69 788 pc UBS; oupw elhluqei o Ihsous pros
pros autous egegon.. . É) B N Y autous D; oupw elhluqei Ihsous pros autous ;
ouk elhluqei pros autous o Ihsous A E F G H (K) D
Q f1 565 579 700 892 Byz
6:19 stadious P28 P75-vid rell UBS estádio * D
6:20 o de legei (P28 o de...) (P75 ... gei) rell kai legei
Ubs
6:21 epi ths ghs P28 rell UBS epi thn ghn * f13 579 1424 pc
6:22 eiden oti (P28 ... Iden Oti) D eidon oti (P75 eido....) A B L N W Q 33 al UBS; oi oti
idwn E F G H D Y 565 579 700 1241 Byz
(Há, é claro, muitas outras variantes nesta parte de John, mas P28 é muito fragmentário para
testemunhar a estes, e os comprimentos de linha aparentemente irregulares demais para
testemunhar a maioria das variantes add/omit.) NOTA: Na27 e edições relacionadas listam P28
como leitura wsei pentakiscilioi no verso 10. Isso é baseado unicamente em cálculos de
comprimentos de linha; o único texto sobrevivente é -cileioi. Esta leitura parece provável - a linha
é extremamente curta se a leitura é ws - mas é muito incerto para usá-la na determinação de
agrupamentos textuais. Situação semelhante ocorre no versículo 19, qewrousin ton Ihsoun. P28
rompe na linha anterior em eikousi p...., ou seja, eikousi pente, e tudo o que sobrevive do texto
qewrousin ton Ihsoun é n In. A Sinopse de Aland lista P28 como omitir ton,mas isso é baseado
apenas em comprimentos de linha e deve ser considerado bastante incerto.
Bibliografia
Colagens:
Placas de exemplo:
Finegan, Encontrando Manuscritos do Novo Testamento

Citado em Merk, Bover, NA26, NA27.
Outras obras:
P39
Rochester (Nova Iorque, EUA). Biblioteca Ambrose Swabey, Inv. nº 8864 - Oxyrhynchus Papyrus
1780
Conteúdo
Porções de João 8:14-22
Data/Escriba
Datado paleograficamente até o século III. A mão é muito clara e o texto sobrevivente é facilmente
lido; suspeita-se de um escriba especialista.
P39 é um fragmento de uma única folha, preservando toda a altura do manuscrito, mas apenas
uma borda. Há 25 linhas por página, mas apenas cerca de seis ou sete letras sobreviventes por
linha (ocasionalmente menos, especialmente no verso). Parece haver cerca de treze ou quatorze
letras por linha (coluna?), o que significa que cerca de metade do texto se sobrepõe.
Há um acordo geral de que o manuscrito é alexandrino. Os Alands listam-no como categoria I,

com um texto "rigoroso". Grenfell e Hunt listam-no como alinhado com B; Schofield vai mais longe,
alegando que nunca se afasta de B. Quando esses autores escreveram, é claro, P75 não era
conhecido. Na área coberta pela P39,há apenas um punhado de diferenças entre P75 e B. P39 não
atesta o versículo 14, kai/h. No versículo 15, onde P75 d f cop add de, P39 não é extorquido, mas
os comprimentos de linha fazem é mais provável do que não que ele omite a palavra com B rell.
(A próxima variante em P75, a omissão de egw no versículo 22, ocorre após o final do manuscrito
(que realmente se rompe no final do versículo 21; tudo o que é visível do versículo 22 faz parte de
um traçado da primeira letra).
von Soden: a1019
Bibliografia
Colagens:
Placas de amostra:

Citado em Merk, Bover, NA26, NA27.
Outras obras:
P45
Location/Catalog Number
Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, P. Chester Beatty I; Vienna, Austrian National Library, Pap. Vindob.
G. 31974 (one leaf, containing Matt. 25:41-26:39)
Contents
P45 is surely in the worst condition of any of the substantial Biblical papyri. Even the surviving
leaves (a small fraction of the original contents, estimated at 30 of 220 original leaves) are
damaged; the most substantial pages are perhaps 80-90% complete, but many others are just
small fragments. There are relatively few complete lines; many of the surviving leaves represent
only about 20% of the width of the original manuscript. Therefore any list of verses included in the
manuscript will make it seem more substantial than it really is; very many of these verses survive
only in part (often very small part).
With that said, the verses represented at least partly in P45 are: Matt. 20:24-32, 21:13-19, 25:41-
26:39; Mark 4:36-40, 5:15-26, 5:38-6:3, 6:16-25, 36-50, 7:3-15, 7:25-8:1, 8:10-26, 8:34-9:8, 9:18-31, 11:27-
12:1, 12:5-8, 13-19, 24-28; Luke 6:31-41, 6:45-7:7, 9:26-41, 9:45-10:1, 10:6-22, 10:26-11:1, 11:6-25, 28-46,
11:50-12:12, 12:18-37, 12:42-13:1, 13:6-24, 13:29-14:10, 14:17-33; John 4:51, 54, 5:21, 24, 10:7-25,
10:31-11:10, 11:18-36, 43-57; Acts 4:27-36, 5:10-20, 30-39, 6:7-7:2, 7:10-21, 32-41, 7:52-8:1, 8:14-25, 8:34-
9:6, 9:16-27, 9:35-10:2, 10:10-23, 31-41, 11:2-14, 11:24-12:5, 12:13-22, 13:6-16, 25-36, 13:46-14:3, 14:15-
23, 15:2-7, 19-26, 15:38-16:4, 16:15-21, 16:32-40, 17:9-17.
It is possible that the codex originally contained other books (e.g. the Catholic Epistles); unlike
many of the major papyri, it is not a single-quire codex, but rather uses gatherings of two leaves,
meaning that it could have had many more leaves at the end.
All told, we have two leaves of Matthew, six of Mark, seven of Luke, two of John, and thirteen of
Acts, with the leaves of Matthew being only the smallest fragments. The leaves of Mark and Acts
are rather more substantial, but still badly damaged; those of Luke and John are relatively
complete. The leaves are broad enough, and the single column of text wide enough, that these
thirty leaves contain substantial amounts of text, but still only about 5% of the original contents.
Kenyon was of the opinion that the gospels were originally in the "Western" order Matthew, John,
Luke, Mark, with Acts (and conceivably other material) following. Given the state of the manuscript,
the fact that it used multiple quires, and the fact that it was brought to the west in pieces, this
cannot be proved -- but Mark and Acts were discovered together, so it seems likely.
Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the third century.
Description and Text-type
It appears that P45 was originally the most extensive of all papyrus manuscripts -- the only one to
include more than one NT section. It has, however, been very badly damaged, meaning that
relatively little text survives. This makes an accurate assessment of the manuscript's type rather
difficult. Wisse, for instance, did not even attempt a profile.
When Kenyon first published the manuscript, however, he attempted to classify it, stating that in
Mark it seemed to be Cæsarean; in Luke and John, neither purely Alexandrian nor Western; in
Acts, primarily Alexandrian (although it has some of the smaller "Western" variants, it has few if
any of the greater).
Kenyon, however, was probably led astray by Streeter's bad definition of the "Cæsarean" text and
by all the bad work which followed from this. Two more recent works have re-examined the ground
and produce a very different conclusion.
The first and, in the long term, probably more important is E. C. Colwell, "Method in Evaluating
Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75" (1965; now available as pages 106-124 in Colwell's
Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament). This showed that P45 is the
result of a freely paraphrased copy; the scribe of P45 or one of its immediate ancestors felt free to
expand, paraphrase, and shorten the text. (Though Colwell noted that deletions were much more
common than additions -- "The dispensable word is dispensed with.")
The noteworthy point here is that this sort of editing is typical of at least two other Gospel text-
types, the "Western" and the "Cæsarean." (Though both of these add and harmonize more than
they delete.) Observe what this means: To a scholar who simply studied the types of readings in
P45 (as opposed to the pattern of readings, which is the true definition of a text-type), P45 would
appear to belong to one of the periphrastic text-types. Of the two, the "Cæsarean" is, of course, the
more restrained, and also has more Alexandrian readings; P45, as an Egyptian manuscript,
probably started with an Alexandrian text.
Thus, Colwell established that P45 needed to be examined more closely before it could be labelled
"Cæsarean." Kenyon's "Cæsarean" classification was not rigorous, and was just what one would
expect from a non-rigorous examination of a manuscript like P45.
Colwell's implicit call for a more detailed study was supplied by Larry W. Hurtado in Text-Critical
Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark. This study suffers from
major methodological flaws, but it pretty definitely establishes its main conclusion: That P45 and W
do not belong with the so-called "Cæsarean" text. (Hurtado has also been interpreted to mean that
the "Cæsarean" text does not exist. This conclusion, however, is premature, given his
methodology; see the discussion of the "Cæsarean" text in the article on text-types.)
So where does this leave P45? The truth is, very little controlled analysis has been done of the
manuscript. It was discovered too late for Von Soden. Wisse did not profile it. The Alands list it as
Category I with a free text, but it seems likely that this assessment is based simply on what they
think of the manuscript. The manuscript needs a re-evaluation before we can really state firm
conclusions. My own analysis indicates that the manuscript is in fact closer to B than to any other
uncial. On the face of it, it would appear that P45 comes from the Alexandrian tradition, but has
been so heavily edited that it begins to appear "Westernized."
Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript
Bibliography
Note: As with most major manuscripts, no attempt is made to compile a complete bibliography.
Collations:
The basic publication remains Frederic G. Kenyon, Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri (Part II, The
Gospels and Acts, in two fascicles). Various authors (Gerstinger, Merk, Zuntz) have published
supplements or additional analysis.
Sample Plates:
Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament (1 plate)
Sir Frederick Kenyon & A. W. Adams, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (1 plate)
Editions which cite:

Cited in NA16 and later, UBS, Merk, Bover
Other Works:
The two most important works are probably those already cited: E. C. Colwell, "Method in
Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75" (1965; pp. 106-124 in Colwell's Studies in
Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament).
Larry W. Hurtado in Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel
of Mark.
P46
Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, P. Chester Beatty II; Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Inv. 6238
Contents
86 leaves (out of an original total of 104), containing portions of Romans 5:17-1 Thes. 5:28
(including Hebrews, following Romans). The surviving leaves (most of which are somewhat
damaged) contain Romans 5:17-6:3, 6:5-14, 8:15-25, 27-35, 8:37-9:32, 10:1-11, 11, 24-33, 11:35-15:9,
15:11-end (with 16:25-27 following chapter 15!); 1 Cor. 1:1-9:2, 9:4-14:14, 14:16-15:15, 15:17-16:22; 2
Cor. 1:1-11:10, 12-21, 11:23-13:13; Gal. 1:1-8, 1:10-2:9, 2:12-21, 3:2-29, 4:2-18, 4:20-5:17, 5:20-6:8,
6:10-18; Eph. 1:1-2:7, 2:10-5:6, 5:8-6:6, 6:8-18, 20-24; Phil. 1:1, 1:5-15, 17-28, 1:30-2:12, 2:14-27, 2:29-
3:8, 3:10-21, 4:2-12, 14-23; Col. 1:1-2, 5-13, 16-24, 1:27-2:19, 2:23-3:11, 3:13-24, 4:3-12, 16-18; 1 Thes.
1:1, 1:9-2:3, 5:5-9, 23-28; Heb. 1:1-9:16, 9:18-10:20, 10:22-30, 10:32-13:25
The original contents of P46 are subject to debate. If the manuscript was indeed 104 pages long
(and the quite numberings make it clear that it was intended to be so), there is no possible way it
could have contained the Pastoral Epistles; the remaining space would have allowed inclusion of 2
Thessalonians but not much more. But, of course, scribes had to guess how many pages they
would need in a single-quire codex. The Pastorals represent only a little more than 10% of the
Pauline corpus, and an scribe's error of 10% in estimating the length of the codex is not
impossible. Thus, while it seems fairly likely that P46 did not and was not intended to include the
Pastorals, the possibility cannot be denied that they were included on additional leaves attached at
the end.
Date/Scribe
Various dates have been proposed for P46, based entirely on paleographic evidence. The earliest
dates have been around the beginning of the second century (a date which has significant
implications for the formation of the Pauline canon, but to which few experts subscribe); the latest
have placed it in the third. The most widely accepted date is probably that of the Alands, who place
it circa 200 C.E.
The scribe of P46 seems to have been a professional copyist, working in a scriptorium. The former
is implied by the neat book hand. The latter is less certain, but Zuntz notes several places where
the scribe came to a crux in copying and left a small gap in the manuscript. Zuntz theorizes, and
this seems reasonable, that the scribe was unable to read or understand the exemplar, and so left
space to allow the corrector to settle the reading.
Despite his apparent profession, the scribe left a great deal to be desired; P46 contains a high
number of peculiar errors. Zuntz thinks (and here again I believe he is right) that the copyist did
much of the copying while tired or otherwise not at his best, as the errors seem to come in
bunches, and are often quite absurd (e.g. writing GRA for GAR).
The correctors weren't much better. The first corrector was the scribe himself, who occasionally
spotted his own errors and attempted to repair them. The second corrector seems to have been
contemporary, and employed as the diorqwths. But this scribe wasn't all that much better;
according to Zuntz, he missed the large majority of the original scribe's peculiar errors. (This raises
the possibility that the errors were in their common exemplar, but Zuntz does not believe this.)
A third corrector, working probably in the third century, made a handful of corrections in a cursive
script, as well as a line count. Zuntz thinks that this corrector was a private owner of the
manuscript, making corrections as he spotted them rather than systematically examining the
manuscript.
The text of P46 has been the subject of a quiet but significant controversy, with too many scholars
ignoring others' results. When the manuscript was first found, it was thought to have mostly
Alexandrian readings, but with a number of "Western" readings as well, especially in Romans.
The only possible word for this description is "simplistic." A number of those so-called "Western"
readings are not readings characteristic of D-F-G, but rather scribal blunders in P46. The rest are
much more interesting, because they have a very strong tendency to agree with B.
This point is well worth remembering. If two manuscripts display a mixture of Alexandrian and
"Western" readings, they may simply be mixed manuscripts. But if they display the same pattern of
mixture, then they are genetically related.
It should also be noted that P46 and B have a number of singular agreements -- and that these
agreements are by no means harmonistic adjustments or the like. Several of them (e.g. Col. 2:2,
tou qeou cristou; Col. 3:6, omit epi tous uious ths apeiqeias) display strong signs of originality.
It was Zuntz who first tackled this issue head-on. In The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon
the Corpus Paulinum, he examined the text of Paul starting not from the established
Alexandrian/Byzantine/"Western" perspective but from the standpoint of P46. This proved an

immensely (and probably excessively) laborious process; it took Zuntz a whole volume just to
examine the data for two books (1 Corinthians and Hebrews). Nonetheless, it produced a
noteworthy result: P46 and B form a group (along with a handful of other witnesses) which is clearly
distinct from the main Alexandrian group found in A C 33 81 1175 etc.
Zuntz proceeded to confuse the issue by calling this type "proto-Alexandrian," Even though he
found that, where the types differed, both the proto-Alexandrian and Alexandrian texts preserved
original readings, he still gave the clear impression that the proto-Alexandrian text was a
forerunner of the mainstream Alexandrian group. I believe Zuntz knew better, but he did not really
analyse the relations between his types, except on a reading-by-reading basis. This made his
results hard to understand. In addition, Zuntz analysed the data only with respect to P46. This
sounds reasonable, but in fact it has severe drawbacks. By his method, any manuscript which has
a significant number of readings found only in P46+B, and not in the Alexandrian or Byzantine or
"Western" texts, will appear to belong to the P46 type. So the Bohairic Coptic, which actually
appears to be an Alexandrian text with some P46/B mixture, went into the P46/B type, as did 1739
(which on detailed examination shows readings of all three other text-types, plus some of its own,
making it perhaps a text-type in its own right).
Unfortunately, Zuntz's research has not been pursued. Metzger's The Text of the New Testament,
for instance, persists in describing it in terms of Alexandrian and "Western" readings. And Zuntz's
research needs to be continued, as it focusses entirely on P46 and does not examine the tradition
as a whole.
My own results imply that there are fully five text-types in Paul: The Alexandrian text of A C 33 81
1175 1506 and the Bohairic Coptic; the P46/B type (consisting only of these two and the Sahidic
Coptic; this type too seems associated with Egypt, and so needs a name); the Western text of D F
G and the Latins, the Byzantine text, and the Family 1739 text (in Paul, 1739 0121 0243 6 424**
630+2200 (Romans-Galatians) 1881; Origen's text is close to, but not identical with, that of this
group). The Alexandrian, P46/B, and 1739 texts are somewhat closer to each other than to the
other two, but by no means a single text. But it should be noted that these results, like Zuntz's,
have not been tested (though based on stronger statistical tools than most scholars have used).
P46 should have been the most important papyrus ever discovered. P45 is too fragmentary and
periphrastic to be important, P47 too limited in extent, P66 too error-prone, and P72 and P75 too
close to B to really contribute much. P46 should have changed our view of the entire history of the
text of Paul. Somehow, this seems not to have happened.
Bibliography
Collations:
Frederick G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri. (P46 is found in fascicle III, covering
Paul)
See also K. Junack, Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, Vol. 2: Die paulinischen Briefe
Sample Plates:
Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament (1 plate)
Comfort, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 plate, same page as the above)
Comfort, The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament (1 plate; same page as above)
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1 plate)
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (1 plate -- again, the same leaf)
Sir Frederick Kenyon & A. W. Adams, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (1 plate)

Cited in NA16 and later, UBS, Merk, Bover
Other Works:
Perhaps most important of the many works on P46 is the one already mentioned, as it is the only
one to treat P46 in light of its own text rather than by comparison to the more recent uncials:
G Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum.
P48
Florence, Laurenxian Library, PSI 1165.
Contents
Portions of Acts 23:11-17, 25-29.
Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the third century. The script is considered quite similar to P13.
P48 is extremely defective even for the surviving portion of a leaf. We have portions of three
margins, but the key word is "portions"; we have really only about ten lines, from the middle of the
page, and even those are damaged (e.g. one whole vertical strip of papyrus has been lost). The
latter verses hardly exist at all; the surviving material is just a few strings and strips extending down
to the bottom margin of the page.
It has become traditional to regard P48 as "Western" -- the Alands, e.g., list is as having a Category
IV text, free but related to D. It is worth noting, however, that P48 and D have no common material
at all.
Determining the actual text-type of P48 is extremely difficult simply because of its limited size. The
Nestle-Aland text, for instance, reports ten readings from the first section (Acts 23:11-17). Two of
these readings are singular according to the apparatus, one is supported only by pc, and four are
supported only by versions (usually Latin). One is supported by 614 h and the Harklean margin.
But several of these are really conjectural readings from the heavily damaged portion of the
papyrus. At least one reading (23:16, insert ean deh kai apeqanein) is based on only the barest
handful of letters and is reconstructed on the basis of 614 h hark-marg. This can hardly be
accepted as valid evidence of text-type.
Bibliography
Collations:
E. Lobel, C. H. Roberts, E. P. Wegener, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume 18.
Sample Plates:

Cited in NA26, NA27, and the UBS editions. (The editions of Merk also claims to cite it, but lists it as
containing Matthew!)
Other Works:
Comfort, Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, p. 55
P51
Oxford (Ashmolean Museum, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2157).
Contents
Portions of Galatians 1:2-10, 13, 16-20. Every line of the surviving fragment is damaged (usually at
both ends); every surviving verse is missing at least a few letters.
Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the fourth or fifth century.
Aland and Aland list P51 as Category II. It is hard to see how they determined this, however, as the
fragment is so small. Collating its text against P46 A B D G K L 81 30 365 1739 produced only
eight variants where at least two of these manuscripts agree against the others; in these eight
readings, P51 showed the following rates of agreement:
Manuscript Agreement Rate
P46 3/7=43%
3/8=38%
A 3/8=38%
B 7/8=88%
D 2/8=25%
G 2/8=25%
K 2/8=25%
L 2/8=25%
81 3/8=38%
330 4/8=50%
365 2/8=25%
1739 5/8=63%
Thus P51 is quite close to B. This is confirmed by the original editors, who describe the text as
"eclectic... its closest affinities seem to be with B, but an agreement with D F G against A B P46
is worth noting." This reading is not, however, a true agreement with the "Western" witnesses;
where D* F G read apostolwn eidon oudena and the remaining witnesses have apostolwn ouk
eidon, P51 appears to conflate to read apostolwn ouk eidon oudena. (It should be noted, however,
that every letter of this reading is at least slightly damaged; we should perhaps not place much
importance on this variant.) It is curious to observe that P51 is not close to B's ally P46; as the
editors note, "None of the three peculiar readings of ...[P46]... find support here, nor does [P51]
ever agree with P46 except when the latter is supporting B." The most interesting reading of P51 is,
surely, in Gal. 1:5, where (along with H 0278 330) it reads w estin h doxa. Thus, given the small
amount of text we have to work with, we can hardly be dogmatic about P51's text.
Bibliography
Collations:
E. Lobel, C. H. Roberts, E. P. Wegener, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume 18.
Sample Plates:

Cited in NA26, NA27, and the UBS editions. (The edition of Merk also claims to cite it, but lists it as
containing Matthew!)
Other Works:
Comfort, Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, p. 55
P52
Manchester, John Rylands Library, Gr. P. 457
Contents
Portions of John 18:31, 32, 33, 37, 38 (see transcription below)
Date/Scribe
Generally dated to the second century. C. H. Roberts, who first observed the manuscript, dated it
before 150 C.E.. More recent observers have tended to date it in the range of 110 to 125 C.E.
Aland and Aland list P52 as a normal text. However, it should be noted that we really know nothing
about the textual affiliations of this manuscript, which contains roughly 118 legible letters. The most
noteworthy feature of the manuscript is its age -- though even this should be taken with some
caution. How certain can a paleographic determination be when it is based on so small a sample?
The story of the manuscript is well-known. Acquired by Grenfell in Egypt in 1920, it went unnoticed
among many other manuscript fragments until 1934, when C. H. Roberts recognized that it
contained part of the Gospel of John. Impressed with the antiquity of the writing, he hastily
published a booklet, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library.
Despite some caution among scholars about his early and precise dating, almost all accept that it
comes from the second century -- simultaneously proving that the codex form and the Gospel of
John were in use by that date.
The surviving fragment is only about 9 cm. tall by 6 cm. wide at its widest, counting lines makes it
appear that the pages contained about eighteen lines of about 32 letters per line. This implies a
page size of about 22 cm. by 20 cm.
Textually P52 tells us little. The complete text is transcribed below:

recto verso
OIIOUDAI HME TOG NN AI
OUDENAINAOL SMONINAMARTU
PENSHMAINW THSALHQE
QNHSKEINIS LEGEIAUTW
RIONOP ITOUT
KAIEIP TOUSI
IW MI
As noted, it appears that P52 had about thirty characters per line. If so, then the likely
reconstruction of the surviving lines is as follows (surviving characters shown in upper case, the
rest in lower)
recto
OI IOUDAIoi HMEin ouk exestin apokteinai
OUDENA INA O Logos tou iu plhrwqh on ei-
PEN SHMAINWn poiw qanatw hmellen apo-
QNHSKEIN IShlqen ouk palin eis to praitw-
RION O Pilatos kai efwnhsen ton in
KAI EIPen autw su ei o basileus twn iou-
daIWn...
verso
(...leus) eimi egw eis touTO GegNNhmAI
kai elhluqa eis ton koSMON INA MARTU-
rhsw th alhqeia pas o wn THS ALHQEi-
as akouei mou ths fwnhs LEGEI AUTW
o pilatos ti estin alhqeia kaI TOUTo
eipwn palin exhlqen pros TOUS Iou-
daious kai legei autois ego oudeMIan
Observe the mis-spellings of HMEin (line 1r), IShlqen (line 4r).
Perhaps more interesting are the uses of the name of Jesus in lines 2r and 5r. Was the name
abbreviated? This is an important and difficult question. Looking at the verso, we find the following
line lengths: 28, 30 (38 if eis touto is included), 29, 28, 29, 28, 31. In the recto, if "Jesus" is
abbreviated, we have 35, 31, 31, 33, 28, 30; if it is expanded, 35, 34, 31, 33 (28 if we omit palin),
31, 30. This is problematic, as the average line lengths on recto and verso are distinctly different --
29 for the verso, 31.33 or 32.33 for the recto. If we consider only the recto, using the long forms
produces less deviation for the line lengths (standard deviation of 1.97; it is 2.42 if we use the short
lengths). However, if we take all thirteen lines we can measure, using the abbreviations produces
the lesser deviation (2.14, with a mean line length of 30.1; without abbreviations the mean is 30.5
and the deviation 2.30). On the whole, then, it is perhaps slightly more likely that the manuscript
used the nomina sacra than not, but it is absolutely impossible to be dogmatic.
As far as interesting variants go, P52 tells us little. The following is a list of variants to which it
attests (note that these are all either idiosyncratic readings or of trivial importance, often both):
18:32 ina o logos tou ihsou plhrwqh P52-vid P66-vid rell; W sa ac2 pbo pc ina plhrwqh o
logos tou ihsou
18:32 on eipen P52-vid c rell; * omits
18:33 palin eis to praitwrion P52-vid P66-vid B C* Dsupp L W X D f13 579 1071 844 lat; P60-
vid A Cc (N Y) D 087 565 700 892supp eis to praitwrion palin; 33 1424 eis to
praitwrion (P52 might support this reading; with palin this line is longer than it ought to be,
but without it it is too short).
18:37 kai elhluqa P52 (or other reading omitting 5-10 letters); rell kai eis touto elhluqa
18:38 legei autw P52 rell; P66 legei oun autw
By the nature of the case, P52 cannot help us with the variant add/omit egw (after eimi in verse 37).
Bibliography
The bibliography for P52 is too extensive to be tracked here. The basic article is the C. H. Roberts
item (An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library) mentioned
above. For more popular works on the subject see the lists below.
Collations:
Collations of P52 are common -- and often rather optimistic in their readings of almost obliterated
letters. Many include reconstuctions of the text as well. The following list includes some of the less
scholarly, but more widely available, reconstructions:
Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts, pp. 85-100 (text, recontruction, and
comparison with other manuscripts)
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 62 (includes reconstructed text)
Salmon, The Fourth Gospel: A History of the Text, pp. 50-53
Sample Plates:
Almost every modern introduction to textual criticism includes photos of P52 (which is why no photo
is included here). Examples include:
Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament
Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts
Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible
Salmon, The Fourth Gospel: A History of the Text
Cited in all the recent Nestle-Aland editions and the like; it should be noted, however, that P52 is so
short that it plays no real role in the critical apparatus.
Other Works:
Comfort, Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, pp. 55-56
P54
Princeton (University Library, P. Princeton 15).

Contents
Portions of James 2:16-18 (beginning with tou swmatos), 22, 24-25, 3:2-4. The manuscript is
damaged on both sides and at the bottom (though the defect at the bottom does not involve much
text); in addition, the manuscript is broken in the middle (it in fact consists of two major pieces and
some shreds), which explains how a single leaf can contain four sections of text. All four sections
are damaged. The state of the fragment is so bad that it is hard to determine even the line length,
but it appears to have been about twenty characters; we have about ten characters in the surviving
lines. A total of 29 lines survive.
Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the fifth or sixth century. The hand is quite firm and clear (or would be if
the fragment were not so discoloured and faded).
Aland and Aland list P54 as Category III or possibly Category II. The Nestle text, however, cites it
for only four readings (one of them, in 2:18, being subsingular); there just isn't enough text to make
a clear determination of the manuscript's type.
Bibliography
Collations:
E. H. Kase, Papyri in the Princeton University Collections, Volume II
Ellwood M. Schofield, The Papyrus Fragments of the Greek New Testament
Sample Plates:

Cited in NA26, NA27, and the UBS editions.
Other Works:
P74
Cologne, Bodmer library. Bodmer Papyrus XVII
Contents
Contains most of Acts (1:2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19, 22-25, 2:2-4, 2:6-3:26, 4:2-6, 8-27, 4:29-27:25, 27:27-
28:31) and fragments of all seven Catholic Epistles (portions of 75 verses of James, 16 verses of
1 Peter, 4 of 2 Peter, 27 of 1 John, 4 of 2 John, 2 of 3 John, and 5 of Jude).
Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the seventh century.

Aland and Aland list P74 as Category I. Richards lists it as a member of his Group A3 (Family
1739), but even he admits "P74 was classified even though there are only eight non-TR readings in
1-3 John by which the manuscript could be judged. We placed P74 in A3 because seven of its eight
non-TR readings are group readings in A3, while only five of the eight are group readings in A2 [the
main Alexandrian group], and just three of the eight are A1 [Family 2138] group readings" (W. L.
Richards, The Classification of the Greek Manuscripts of the Johannine Epistles, p. 139). However,
Richards seems to have been betrayed by his inaccurate groups and his small sample size. In the
Catholic Epistles as a whole (meaning primarily James), P74 is not close to Family 1739. The
following data examines all readings of P74 in the Catholics cited explicitly in NA27. There are
exactly fifty such readings. Of these fifty, P74 agrees with the Byzantine text in a mere six. Nine of
its readings are singular or subsingular (i.e. not supported by any of the test witnesses A B L P
33 323 614 1241 1505 1739) It has six readings which have only one supporter among the test
witnesses. Its rate of agreements are as follows:
Witness Overall Agreements supported only

Agreements by P74 and the listed witness
17 of 50 (34%) 0
A 30 of 49 (61%) 4
B 21 of 50 (42%) 1
L 11 of 50 (22%) 1
P 14 of 46 (30%) 0
33 21 of 44 (48%) 0
323 17 of 50 (34%) 0
614 14 of 50 (28%) 0
1241 20 of 49 (41%) 0
1505 14 of 50 (28%) 0
1739 22 of 50 (44%) 0
Thus P74's allegiance is clearly with A. If we omit P74's nine singular readings, they agree in 30 of
41 variants, or 73% of the time. A is the only manuscript to agree with P 74 over 70% of the time. In
addition, A agrees with the larger part of P74's most unusual readings.
We also observe that P74's next closest relative is 33, which is fairly close to A.
Without adding statistics, we can observe that P74 seems to have a similar text of Acts. Although it
has been called Byzantine, in fact it is a high-quality Alexandrian text of that book, and deserves
the Alands' Category I description.
Bibliography
Collations:
Rudolf Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XVII: Actes des Apôtres, Epîtres de Jacques, Pierre, Jean et Jude
See also K. Junack, Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus (volumes 1 and 3, Catholic Epistles and
Acts)
Sample Plates:
Aland & Aland (1 plate)

Cited in all UBS editions and in NA26 and NA27
Other Works:
P75
Cologny (Geneva), Switzerland, Bodmer library. Bodmer Papyrus XIV, XV
Contents
Contains major portions of Luke and John: Luke 3:18-22, 3:33-4:2, 4:34-5:10, 5:37-6:4, 6:10-7:32, 7:35-
39, 41-43, 7:46-9:2, 9:4-17:15, 17:19-18:18, 22:4-end, John 1:1-11:45, 11:48-57, 12:3-13:10, 14:8-15:10.
The volume, despite loss of leaves, is in surprisingly good condition, we even have portions of the
binding (which is thought to have been added later). We have all or part of 102 pages (51 leaves),
out of an original total of about 144 (72 leaves). Generally speaking, the earlier leaves are in better
condition; many of the pages in the latter part of John have gone to pieces and have to be
reconstructed from fragments.
Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the third century (with most scholars tending toward the earlier half of
that century); Martin and Kasser, who edited the manuscript, would have allowed a date as early
as 175. The scribe seems to have been generally careful, writing a neat and clear hand (though
letter sizes vary somewhat), and (with some minor exceptions) using a fairly consistent spelling.
Colwell observed that the natural writing tendencies of the scribe were strongly restrained by the
text before him, indicating a copy of very high fideily. The editors of the codex argued that the
copyist was a professional scribe. We do note, however, that lines are of very variable length (25 to
36 letters per line), as are the pages (38 to 45 lines per page). As P75 is a single-quire codex of
(presumably) 36 folios, it has been argued that the scribe was trying to get more text on a page to
hold the codex to the available space.
The fact which has struck every examiner of P75 is its extremely close resemblance to B. A
number of statistical studies to this effect have been made; as far as I know, however, all have
been done by textual critics with weak mathematical backgrounds and with inadequate controls.
Thus, none of their figures for agreements between manuscripts can be regarded as meaning
much. Still, the result is unquestionable: P75 is closer to B than to any other manuscript, and vice
versa. There are enough differences that P75 cannot be the parent of B, and is unlikely to be a
direct ancestor, but P75 and B certainly had a common ancestor, and this ancestor must have been
older than P75. Moreover, both manuscripts have remained quite close to this ancestral text. The
mere fact that the two agree does not tell us how good this ancestral text is (most scholars would
regard it as very good, but this is for other reasons than the closeness of the two manuscripts). But
we are able to reconstruct this text with great accuracy.
Interestingly, there has been no systematic study examining the text of P75. The Alands, of course,
list it as Category I, with a strict text, but this is based simply on the date and character of the
manuscript; it is not really an examination of the text. Wisse, for some reason, did not profile P75,
even though it is the only papyrus of Luke substantial enough to allow such an evaluation (at least
of Chapter 10).
The discovery of P75 has had a profound effect on New Testament criticism. The demonstration
that the B text is older than B seems to have encouraged a much stronger belief in its originality.
The UBS committee, for instance, placed the Western Non-Interpolations back in their text based
largely on the evidence of P75.
The irony, as E. C. Colwell pointed out in the essay "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program" (p. 156
in the reprint in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament), is that P75
should have had no such effect. The existence of manuscripts such as P75 had never been
questioned. The major Bodmer papyri (P66, P72, P74, and P75) are important and influential
witnesses, but they should have little effect on our textual theory. The truly significant witnesses
were the Beatty papyri -- P46, as Zuntz showed, should have completely altered our view of the
text of Paul (but somehow it didn't); P47 perhaps should have a similar if less spectacular effect on
our text of the Apocalypse; and P45 (as Colwell showed) allows us to see the sorts of liberties
some copyists could take with the Biblical text.
This is not to deny the great value of P75. Since P66 is a notably inaccurate copy, and P45
paraphrases (see Colwell, "Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75," pp.
196-124 in Studies in Methodology), P75 is the earliest substantial and careful manuscript of the
Gospels. Most would also regard it as having the best text. It does have a few limitations, however.
It has been accused of omitting minor words such as personal pronouns (see page 121 in the
Colwell essay).
Bibliography
Collations:
Rudolf Kasser and Victor Martin, Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV. Two volumes; Volume I contains the
Lukan material, Volume II the Johannine.
Supplementary portions of the text are found in Kurt Aland, "Neue neutestamentliche Papyri III,"
New Testament Studies #22.
Sample Plates:
Complete plates in Kasser & Martin. Sample plates in almost every recent book, including Aland &
Aland, Metzger's Text of the Ne Testament and Manuscripts of the New Testament, Finegan,
Encountering New Testament Manuscripts, and anything ever published by Philip Wesley Comfort.

Cited in all editions published since its discovery -- including NA35 and higher, all UBS editions,
and even Hodges & Farstad.
Other Works:
Calvin Porter, "Papyrus Bodmer XV (P75) and the Text of Codex Vaticanus," Journal of Biblical
Literature 81.
E. C. Colwell, "Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75," pp. 196-124 in
Studies in Methodology
P78
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2684
Contents
Portions of Jude 4-5, 7-8 (additional material illegible)
Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the third or fourth century.
P78 contains only a fragment of a single leaf, measuring a little over 10 cm. across by 2.5 cm. tall.
This suffices to hold three to four lines of text. There are two columns of about a dozen lines each.
The surviving portion appears to be the top of the page.
The verso portion is easily read, although written in a rather hurried, inelegant hand. The left-hand
column begins with verse 4, arnoumenoi and ends with verse 5, eidotas. Column 2 begins with
verse 7, aiwniou and ends with verse 8, enupniazome[noi].
The recto portion is in much worse shape, being practically illegible. The left column begins with
verse 8, sarka men. The rest of this column is only marginally legible, and the second column
cannot really be deciphered (at least in visible light). The fragment thus contains a total of only
about 100 Greek characters.
Nonetheless its text is striking. The Alands classify it as Category I (based on its date) with a "free"
text. We observe several noteworthy readings:
v. 5 -- add adelfoi after boulomai (singular reading)

v. 7: epecousai for upecousai (with 630 1505 2495 and certain other Family 2138 witnesses)
v. 8 -- autoi for outoi (singular reading)
v. 8: doxan for doxas (a reading seemingly supported only by Latin and Syriac witnesses)
Several of these may be the result of a hasty and careless scribe. Sadly, the fragment is so short
that we cannot really draw further conclusions.
Bibliography
Collations:
L. Ingrams, P. Kingston, P. Parsons, J. Rea, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, volume 34.
Sample Plates:

Cited in UBS4, NA26, and NA27.
Other Works:
P90
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 3523
Contents
Portions of John 18:36-19:7
Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the second century (making it, after P52, perhaps the oldest surviving
New Testament papyrus). The script is considered similar to the "unknown gospel," P. Egerton 2.
P90 contains only a part of a single leaf, about 15 cm. tall and nowhere more than six cm. wide. It
appears that we have the entire height of the leaf, but only a portion of its width, with thirteen or
fewer characters surviving on each line (24 lines visible on the recto, 23 on the verso). Even the
surviving characters are often illegible. (So much so that, of the eleven readings noted in NA27,
eight are marked vid.) The manuscript appears to have originally has about twenty characters per
line, meaning that even the best-preserved lines are missing a third of their text, and most are
missing half or more. The hand is generally clear but not polished.
Because the manuscript is so newly-discovered, it has not been classified according to any of the
standard classification schemes. It does not appear to contain any noteworthy variants. The
following table shows its rate of agreement with some key manuscripts in the variants cited in
NA27:
MS Agreements Percent Agreement
P66 5/11 45%
7/11 64%
A 1/11 9%
B 3/11 27%
Dsup 3/11 27%
K 2/11 18%
L 6/11 55%
Q 2/11 18%
1 3/11 27%
With such small samples, our percentages of agreement obviously don't mean much. But it will be
clear that P90 is not Byzantine; it appears to be an Alexandrian witness of some kind. Comfort
listed it as closest to P66 (based probably on some relatively unusual readings they share), but his
bias toward early papyri is well-known; in fact it looks closer to . Its lack of kinship with B is
noteworthy.
Bibliography
Collations:
L. Ingrams, P. Kingston, P. Parsons, J. Rea, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, volume 50.
Sample Plates:

Cited in NA27.
Other Works:

NT Manuscripts - Papyri

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NT Manuscripts - Papyri

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

19/03/2021 NT Manuscripts - Papyri

Manuscritos do Novo Testamento

São Petersburgo, Biblioteca Nacional Russa Gr. 258A

Descrição e tipo de texto

Outros símbolos usados para este manuscrito

von Soden: a1020

Edições que citam:

Descrição e tipo de texto

Outros símbolos usados para este manuscrito

von Soden: umP.

Edições que citam:

Biblioteca da Universidade de Princeton, Am 4117 - Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1171

Porções de Tiago 2:19-3:9

Datado paleograficamente até o século III.

Descrição e tipo de texto

A pequena quantidade de texto restante dificulta a classificação do manuscrito. Os Alands listam-

Outros símbolos usados para este manuscrito

von Soden: a1019

Edições que citam:

Porções do Rev. 5:5-8, 6:5-8

Descrição e tipo de texto

Outros símbolos usados para este manuscrito

Edições que citam:

Berkeley (Museu do Instituto Palestina), Escola de Religião do Pacífico Papyrus 2 - Oxyrhynchus

Porções de João 6:8-12, 17-22

Descrição e tipo de texto

Leituras de P28 e apoiadores Outras leituras

Outros símbolos usados para este manuscrito

Edições que citam:

Porções de João 8:14-22

Descrição e tipo de texto

Há um acordo geral de que o manuscrito é alexandrino. Os Alands listam-no como categoria I,

Outros símbolos usados para este manuscrito

von Soden: a1019

Edições que citam:

Dated paleographically to the third century.

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Editions which cite:

Description and Text-type

Alexandrian/Byzantine/"Western" perspective but from the standpoint of P46. This proved an

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Editions which cite:

Florence, Laurenxian Library, PSI 1165.

Portions of Acts 23:11-17, 25-29.

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Editions which cite:

Oxford (Ashmolean Museum, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2157).

Dated paleographically to the fourth or fifth century.

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Editions which cite:

Manchester, John Rylands Library, Gr. P. 457

Portions of John 18:31, 32, 33, 37, 38 (see transcription below)

Description and Text-type

Textually P52 tells us little. The complete text is transcribed below:

Observe the mis-spellings of HMEin (line 1r), IShlqen (line 4r).

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

Editions which cite:

Princeton (University Library, P. Princeton 15).

Description and Text-type

Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript