Last but not least, I am very happy to announce that my book on amulets has just appeared in paperback; I received my first copies today from the press (Bloomsbury). There are three differences from the hardback published in 2016: 1) a few corrections were made, 2) the images of papyri are converted to black and white, and 3) it's about $100 cheaper! So, now is the time to go BUY ONE...HERE.
​
I had several kind invitations to submit my manuscript to other publishers, but I am very happy with my decision to have my work published in the prestigious Library of New Testament Studies series. The book has been reviewed many times already in the field, and the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive. The book has been cited in several books and articles; I'm just glad that people are reading it and finding something to take away from it. If nothing else, get it for the pretty pictures of papyri, which pop in color in the hardback version. 

(Please excuse the self-blurbing in this post!)

​In the latest volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series, Brent Landau and T.C. Hoklotubbe provide the edition of a fifth/sixth century papyrus (P.Oxy. 81.5260), which preserves a variant of a Christian hymn known from several Greek patristic sources. The title to their entry is, “Hymn of the Cross: Amulet?”
 
Each line of the fragment begins with a standalone staurogram (the combination of the Greek letters tau and rho) representing the word “cross” (this is highly unusual), followed by a descriptive phrase. Here is an example from column 2:

I here want to draw attention to the fact that a variant of this “cross hymn” is found in another, earlier Greek papyrus fragment housed at Michigan. The papyrus, P.Mich. inv. 1628 (LDAB 195), was published in 1984 by Nancy Priest, who drew parallels with the text of Alexander Monachus’ De inventione sanctae crucis (see PG 87:4073). Neither the Michigan papyrus nor the text of Alexander are mentioned by the authors of the new Oxyrhynchus fragment, so a couple noteworthy observations can be made. 

In the Michigan fragment, the word “cross” (σταυρός) begins each line and is abbreviated all but two times as σταυρ, with an oblique stroke written through the letter rho (see image at right). It just so happens that this stroke combined with the letter rho resembles a staurogram, which stands alone at the beginning of each line in the Oxyrhynchus fragment. One might be tempted to argue that the scribe created the staurogram in this way intentionally, although this oblique stroke is a typical marker of abbreviation (in fact, he/she uses it as such in l. 16 for another word. So, we cannot be too sure.
 
More importantly, the Michigan papyrus has textual parallels with the sources cited by Landau and Hoklotubbe: Pseudo-Chrysostom (which, as the authors show, has been attributed to John II, bishop of Jerusalem), Ephrem the Syrian, and John of Damascus.
 
For example, the Michigan fragment shares a few readings with all three patristic sources: σταυρὸς χειμαζομένων [Ps.C: -οντων] λιμήν; σταυρὸς ἐκκλησίας θεμέλιος, σταυρὸς δούλων ἐλευθερία. Other readings in the Michigan fragment are shared with only one or two of the patristic sources but it is clear that all these sources are drawing on a common literary tradition. 
 
These parallels are important for two reasons: dating the composition of the hymn and reconstructing the text of the Michigan fragment.

The Michigan papyrus was dated to the fourth century ("or perhaps a bit later"); the Oxyrhynchus papyrus was dated to the fifth/sixth century. Landau and Hoklotubbe say, “Although 5260 is dated to the fifth/sixth century, the hymn may have originated earlier, at a time when the composition of new hymns was controversial” (p. 12). Given the dating of the Michigan papyrus, we can at least say that variants of the hymn were indeed circulating around a century prior to the composition of the Oxyrhynchus fragment. As Landau and Hoklotubbe demonstrate, the stanzas of this hymn diverge among all sources, both in content and sequence. The hymn probably has earlier origins and was perhaps reshaped by different authors in different locations along the way for various purposes (this was typical of homiletical texts, for example). 
 
Priest did not reference the sources cited by Landau and Hoklotubbe but those sources are incredibly significant because now some lines in the Michigan fragment can be restored with certainty. I am working on a re-edition of P.Mich. inv. 1628 and will try to submit that for publication soon.
 
Finally, it is interesting to note that Priest, Landau, and Hoklotubbe all wonder about the function of their papyri. Priest argued that the Michigan fragment may have served as a hand-list of notes for a sermon on the cross. Landau and Hoklotubbe suggest the Oxyrhynchus fragment could have been designed as an amulet or for liturgical use. It is difficult to say with certainty how these papyri functioned (prayer? homily? amulet? notes? private devotion?) but the question is worth pondering. These papyri, especially the Oxyrhynchus fragment, also raise some interesting questions about the development/use of the staurogram in early Christian artifacts. 

Two new Greek NT papyrus fragments from Oxyrhynchus have been identified: one of Ephesians and one of 1 Timothy. These fragments, already assigned Gregory-Aland numbers, were just published in the latest volume of the Oyrhynchus Papyri--P.Oxy. 81. Dr. Geoff Smith, the author of the Ephesians fragment, has uploaded the editions of both fragments on his Academia.edu site. (Side note: Geoff and I were both featured in a New York Times piece in 2015.)

1. P.Oxy. 81.5258: Ephesians 3:21–4:2, 14-16 / GA P132
Editor: Dr. Geoff Smith

​A small codex fragment of Ephesians dated to the third/fourth century—the first fragment of this work to surface from Oxyrhynchus. Nomina sacra are present. Written in an informal hand on both sides of the papyrus. There is only one variant in 3:21 (omission of καί). Here is the editor's transcription of both recto and verso.

​A small codex fragment of 1 Timothy dated to the third century written on both sides of the papyrus in a fairly large Biblical majuscule hand. The most significant fact is that 5259 is the earliest witness of 1 Timothy to ever be published. Nomina sacra are present. There are only two variants in 3:13 (τὴν vs. τῇ) and 4:2 (συνίδησιν vs. συνείδησιν. The text also exhibits a previously unattested form of a nomen sacrum​ in 4:1 (πνσι for πνεῦμασιν). Here is the editor's transcription of both recto and verso.

In the same volume, there is another interesting Christian papyrus--"5260: Hymn of the Cross: Amulet?"—that I am probably going to come back to in a later post. 

The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) is a fascinating first or second century Christian treatise dealing with Christian ethics and rituals. Many consider this text to be the earliest example of what might be called a “church manual” or “church orders.”
 
The chief textual witness to the text of the Didache is an eleventh-century Greek parchment manuscript known as Codex Hierosolymitanus (or Codex H) that was discovered in the late nineteenth century, now kept in Jerusalem. The Church Fathers also cite the Didache, so we know it enjoyed a place within early Christian life and practice. Eusebius, for example, places it alongside non-canonical books that “are known to most of the writers of the Church” (Ecclesiastical History 3.25).
 
In the early twentieth century, two small Greek parchment codex fragments with portions of the Didache turned up in the Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus. These represent the earliest Greek witness of the Didache by about 650 years, since the fragments are generally dated to the fourth century (and Codex H to the year 1056). In 1922, British papyrologist Arthur Hunt published the edition of the fragments in the famous Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. The fragments are referred to by their publication number, P.Oxy. 15.1782. 
 
Measuring 5 x 5.8 cm and 5.7 x 4.8 cm, the fragments are part of a “miniature codex.” These palm-sized manuscripts apparently became popular among Christians in the fourth century and beyond, and quite a few of them were discovered in the ancient trash heaps at Oxyrhynchus. The Oxyrhynchus fragments preserve the text of Didache 1:3c-4a and 2:7b—3:2a. Hunt calculated that eight leaves were required for the text intervening between folio 1 verso and folio 2 recto. This is of course assuming that the fragments are part of a continuous text of the Didache and not merely extracts. (I personally think it is highly possible that we have here extracts and not a continuous text, but more on that later.)
 
The fragments are significant for their age but also because they demonstrate variation in wording compared to the text of Codex H. To wrap up this brief summary, I provide below two good photographs of the two Oxhyrhynchus Didache fragments.