Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6443Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Bible Gal 4-24 -26

Expand Messages
  • Richard Godwin
    May 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry, I should have added some of what I already have in my files:

      On http://members. aol.com/_ ht_a/egweimi/ p46.htm we can read an article
      "Palaeographical Dating of p46 to the Later First Century" by Young
      Kyu Kim.
      Does anyone possess an opinion about it?
      Or does anyone know about positive or negative comments?
      A. Dirkzwager

      Then this is given, as you report.  Comfort & Barrett and Pickering.
      Then from scholar Carl Conrad (you know him!):

      Clearly then,
      whichever of the Synoptics appeared first could have been written to a very
      rigid plan even in the absence of any previous written material to go on.
      However, I remain unconvinced that this was actually the case. In part this
      is due to the existence of P46. This 2nd century single-quire codex of the
      Paulines has been puzzling people for some considerable time, because
      (without the addition of extra pages) it could not have held all the
      Paulines, and yet shows clear signs that the writer was trying to cram more
      into the 2nd half than the 1st half. In other words, despite (presumably)
      having copies of the individual letters in front of him, the creator of P46
      apparently seriously miss-calculated how much space was needed.



      On a more technical note, Daniel Buck wrote on p46, following some lead up to this:


      What immediately leaped out to me was the word "POISON" in the fourth line. Upon closer inspection, however, it turned out to be an optical illusion; the 'N' is not really 'IS'. So my first theory, that the scribe was literate in English, was tossed out. Moving down that line, though, I can see that the scribe could not have been familiar with Greek letters or Nomina Sacra. Each letter is drawn as s/he best perceives it to have stood in the original, and only incidently do these result in legible Greek characters. Note that the superscript is broken in between the letters UU rather than forming a solid line. Many characters are broken up in this way due to the poor quality of the exemplar. 'H' is mistaken for 'N', 'U' for 'O', etc. In an interesting reverse of the usual process, note the NS for QU in the 3rd line. The superscript is unbroken in the original, but broken in the facsimile. This lends credence to the intermediate- copy hypothesis. But looking more closely, it would appear that the break may have been caused by a dirty lens on Dan Wallace's digital camera. Suffice it to say, we are dealing with a multi-generational copy here! I have one question: How can we be sure that this final copy is a printout rather than a ms? The rough surface of papyrus would seem to preclude such a consistent laydown of ink. Has any analysis been done of the ink? Daniel Buck

      Just some more observations,

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 11:37 PM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Bible Gal 4-24 -26


      p 202 P46 (P. Chester Beatty II
      + P. Mich. Inv. 6238)


      most of Paul’s epistles, excluding the Pastorals. The order is as follows: Rom. 5:17–6:3, 5–14; 8:15–25, 27–35; 8:37–9:32; 10:1–11:22, 24–33; 11:35–15:10; 15:11–16:27; Heb. 1:1–9:16; 9:18–10:20, 22–30; 10:32–13:25; 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; Eph. 1:1–2:7; 2:10–5:6; 5:8–6:6, 8–18, 20–24; Gal. 1:1–8; 1:10–2:9, 12–21; 3:2–29; 4:2–18; 4:20–5:17; 5:20–6:8, 10–18; Phil. 1:1, 5–15, 17–28; 1:30–2:12, 14–27; 2:29–3:8, 10–21; 4:2–12, 14–23; Col. 1:1–2, 5–13, 16–24; 1:27–2:19; 2:23–3:11, 13–24; 4:3–12, 16–18; 1 Thess. 1:1; 1:9–2:3; 5:5–9, 23–28. New reconstructions appear in Rom. 11:2; 15:10; Heb. 7:28; 1 Cor. 1:13–14; 4:10; 5:7–8; 14:15; 15:50; 16:23; 2 Cor. 4:12; 6:2; 11:21–22; Eph. 5:6; 6:18; Phil. 1:1; 3:8. (Each is noted in the text.)


      middle second century; see discussion below.


      the Fayum, Egypt, or perhaps in the ruins of a church or monastery near Atfih (ancient Aphroditopolis)


      Kenyon dated this codex to the first half of the third century. Kenyon’s dating was largely influenced by the handwriting of the stichometrical notes at the end of several of the epistles, which he dated to the early part of the third century. Ulrich Wilcken, who was director of the Vienna library and founder of

      Archiv für Papyrusforschung
      , thought it belonged to the second century and said it could be dated safely to around a.d. 200. Wilcken suggested this date on the basis of seeing only one leaf. Hans Gerstinger also thought it belonged to the second century.

      Young Kyu Kim proposed a date in the reign of Domitian (a.d. 81–96) based on six criteria:

      1. All literary papyri similar to the exact style of P46 have been assigned dates between the first century b.c. and the early second century a.d. His primary examples are P. Oxy. 1790, P. Oxy. 2337, P. Oxy. 3695, P. Mil. Vogl. 1181, P. Mich. 6789, P. Alex. 443, P. Med. 70.01 verso, and P. Rylands III 550. His secondary examples are P. Mon. Gr. 216, P. Berol. 6926/P. Gen. 100, P. Gr. Berol. 19c, P. Gr. Berol. 29b, P. Oxy. 8, P. Hamb. III 193, and P. Oxy. 3721.

      2. Comparable documentary papyri are dated early: P. Oxy. 211, 270, 318, 320, and 3051.

      3. The handwriting of P46 is an upright, informal uncial of the early type. It is a bookhand, manifesting at times a running hand, giving way here and there to ligatures, while still trying to keep the upper line. Such a style is very rare after the first century. p 205

      4. The finals at the feet of the letters are seen in other manuscripts dated from the last quarter of the third century b.c. to the third quarter of the first century a.d.

      5. The

      εγ-form (before compounds with β, δ, and λ) is very early, as compared with the εκ-form.

      6. The hand of a certain corrector (no. 11, writing

      και) appears in manuscripts from the second century b.c. to the early second century a.d.

      My observation is that most of the manuscripts from the first century that Kim sees as displaying a hand comparable to P46 show some similarities in individual letters but not in overall appearance and therefore do not belong to the same time period as P46. Kim himself admits that several of these manuscripts display an early form of what we see later in P46, especially with respect to the serifs at the bottom and tops of letters.

      Let us take, for example, several of the papyri dated to the first century that Kim cites as illustrating the kind of hand manifested in P46. My observation is that the following manuscripts are too early to be parallel examples of P46:

      P. Med. 70.01 verso (a.d. 55)—several similarities, but earlier than P46

      P. Oxy. 270 (a.d. 94)—some similarities, but not many

      P. Oxy. 2987 (a.d. 78–79)—nascent similarities

      P. Oxy. 3051 (a.d. 89)—a few similarities

      P. Oxy. 3695 (first century a.d.)—many similarities, but not completely identical

      P. Gr. Berol. 6845 (ca. a.d. 100)—a few similarities

      P. Berol. 6926 + P. Gen. 100 (second half of first century a.d.)—a few similarities in small serifs, but not completely identical

      These manuscripts may have, here and there, a few letters like P46, but their overall appearance is earlier.

      Far more similarities are seen in the following manuscripts:

      P. Oxy. 8 (assigned late first or early second century)—very similar morphologically

      P. Oxy. 841 (the second hand, which cannot be dated later than a.d. 125–150 [see plate and discussion in C. H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands, no. 14])—the handwriting is similar to that found in P46

      P. Oxy. 1622 (dated with confidence to pre-a.d. 148, probably during the reign of Hadrian [117–138], because of the documentary text on the verso)—this early-dated specimen shares many similar features with P46 p 206

      P. Oxy. 2337 (assigned to the late first century)—very similar but probably earlier than P46

      P. Oxy. 3721 (assigned to the second half of the second century, but Kim would date it earlier)—the most comparable of all the manuscripts I have personally seen

      P. Rylands III 550 (assigned to the second century)—a remarkable likeness to P46

      P. Berol. 9810 (early second century)—quite similar (see plate and discussion in Schubart, Palaeographie, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 1.4.1 [Munich: C. H. Beck, 1925], 29b.)

      Comfort, Philip Wesley and David P. Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. A corrected, enlarged ed. of The complete text of the earliest New Testament manuscripts. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2001.


      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus

      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 7:53:53 PM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Bible Gal 4-24 -26



      p46:  "about the year 200":  Metzger.  Long after Marcion was active, plenty of time for a different text to have evolved.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 10:23 AM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Bible Gal 4-24 -26


      I don't particularly think we should be concerned with how one or another version translates except insofar as it may reveal an underlying Urtext.  Marcion died c. 160.  P46 dates from approximately the same time and has the following text -- differences in the critical text are noted by bracketed transcription of the difference in upper case to distinguish it from the text of P46.


      εστιν αληγορουμενα αυται γαρ εισιν δυο


      μια μεν απο ορους σεινα [SINA] εις δου


      γεννωσα ητις εστιν αγαρ 25το δε [AGAR] σεινα [SINA]


      εστιν εν τη αραβια συνστοιχει δε τη


      ϊερουσαλημ δουλευει γαρ μετα των


      αυτης 26η δε ανω ϊερουσαλημ


      εστιν ητις εστιν μητηρ ημων


      It appears to me that the only substantial difference is that of AGAR in v 25.  Wycliff and Douay-Reims appear to agree more with P46 than the others in omitting Hagar from v 25.  Nevertheless, P46 and all others do mention Jerusalem in v 26.  It would appear to me that the text of Marcion's time was substantially the same as the critical text with the one exception of Hagar in v 25 (and some minor matters of iotacism).  Even the omission of Hagar in v 25 might simply be a matter of haplography. 


      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus

      From: "talmidim@..." <talmidim@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 6:39:17 AM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Bible Gal 4-24 -26


       Marcion's translation of Gal 4:24 - 26 is as follows:

      The modern translations of Galatians 4:24-26 are significantly different from Marcion's which is as follows in which neither  Jerusalem nor Hagar are mentioned:



      4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth by the Law to the Synagogue of the Jews to bondage. The other gendereth higher than all Principalities, Virtues, Powers; even higher than any Lady ever named; not only in this Aeon but in the following one also, 4:26 which is the mother of us all."


      Wycliffe reads as follows:


      24 The which things be said by another understanding. For these be two testaments; one in the hill of Sinai, engendering into servage, which is Agar. 

          25 For Sinai is an hill that is in Arabia, which hill is joined to it that is now Jerusalem, and serveth with her children.

          26 But that Jerusalem that is above, is free, which is our mother




      24Which things have an allegorical sense; for these are two covenants: one from mount Sinai, gendering to bondage, which is Hagar.

       25For Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which [is] now, for she is in bondage with her children;

       26but the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother.


      Douay Reims


          24Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar:

          25For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

          26But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother.




       24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two  covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.




      24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

       25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

       26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


      Why such a difference in translations? 

      Would not Marcion's version most likely be the original, since it would have been based on older manuscripts? 




    • Show all 8 messages in this topic