In the latest issue of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series (LXXVIII, Egyptian Exploration Society, 2012), W. B. Henry offers an edition of P.Oxy. 5129 (Justin Martyr's First Apology), which is the earliest Greek manuscript of any text of Justin Martyr. According to Henry, "[t]his is the first published ancient copy of a work of Justin Martyr. The text is otherwise known only from the unreliable manuscript A (Parisinus graecus 450, of 1364)." Henry dates the hand to the 4th century CE, citing P.Oxy. 2699 and P.Herm. 5 as comparanda. This is, therefore, an incredible discovery, since P.Oxy. 5129 predates the earliest manuscript of Justin by a millennium! There are a few variants in the fragment (e.g., omission of εντυχειν in 50.12, υμων instead of ημων in 51.4) that make the text important for text-critical study of Justin's First Apology. The manuscript is written on parchment in an elegant hand of the "Severe" type. Unfortunately, only six, partial lines have been preserved (3 lines on hair, 3 lines on flesh), and the flesh side is particularly sparse. Henry collates the text with the critical edition of D. Minns and P. Parvis (2009). For interested readers, I reproduce Henry's transcription of the text of P.Oxy. 5129 below, alongside my own translation (with brackets signifying reconstructions), which is followed by a snapshot of the hair side of the fragment.
10 Comments
Roger Pearse
10/31/2013 05:29:17 am
Marvellous! Thank you for drawing attention to this!
Reply
Richard Budelberger
link
10/31/2013 07:13:05 am
So… in these “Oxyrhynchus Papyri”, we can find a… parchment ?…
Reply
Brice C. Jones
link
10/31/2013 07:18:58 am
Richard, in papyrological circles, "papyrus" is a broad concept. I would refer you to Roger Bagnall's Introduction in _The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology_ (Oxford, 2009).
Reply
Richard Budelberger
link
10/31/2013 07:49:41 am
Brice, don’t you have written someting like « Unfortunately, however, the editors often translate substantial portions of reconstructed text from critical editions (i.e., text not preserved on the papyrus or inscription), yet they do not signify in the translation what is reconstructed. The editors translate these lines (…) The editors, therefore, do not employ brackets in the translation to signify textual reconstruction—the common editorial practice for translations of lacunose papyri and inscriptions. As a rule, reconstructions of texts are only tentative, and so English translations that do not mark the reconstructed text are misleading, especially when we are dealing with more than one reconstructed word. » (¹) ? « prophecie[s i]n wh[ich all these things] », etc. ;-)
Reply
Brice C. Jones
link
10/31/2013 07:56:59 am
Yes, that can be helpful here. See the application above.
Reply
Annette Yoshiko Reed
10/31/2013 08:02:51 am
Many thanks for posting this! Also, if it's not too much trouble, can you post the full citation? (E.g., is this in the P.Oxy 78 volume from 2012, or is there a 2013 volume out?)
Reply
Brice C. Jones
link
10/31/2013 08:14:58 am
Thanks, Annette! It is indeed the 78th volume, and I have added reference to it as well as a link to the EES website with a further description of the volume.
Reply
Richard Budelberger
link
10/31/2013 09:08:24 am
The omission of εντυχειν can easily be explained (εντυχειν εν, om. per hom.), but this important sentence « και εις ουρανον ανερχομενον ιδοντες » (“and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven”) ? Can
Reply
spin
10/31/2013 10:51:09 am
Both seem like straight forward haplographies, the first skipping from one εν to the next, just as the other skips from one και to the next. Just takes distracted scribe and no corrector. Whether t hat was the cause or not is a different story.
Reply
Alice C. Linsley
link
12/31/2013 09:31:13 am
Older by 1000 years! This is very exciting. I appreciate your posting this and I hope that there will be further information.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2017
Categories
All
|