Brice C. Jones
  • Home
  • Blog
  • CV
  • Publications
  • Papyrological Resources
  • Contact

The Earliest Greek Manuscript of the Didache (P.Oxy. 15.1782)

4/14/2016

8 Comments

 
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.
P.Oxy. XV 1782
P.Oxy. XV 1782
8 Comments
Thomas J. Kraus
4/14/2016 10:55:24 am

Well done, Brice. Keep on pointing out interesting manuscripts and fragments, please. Miniature codices are fascinating but unfortunately not very often addressed and assessed as such (focus is mostly set on their texts and, then, variants = textual criticism) and as artifacts/objects. Your idea that it might be more likely that P.Oxy. 15.1782 contains extracts (and not a running text as we expect it to be today) is interesting and needs further reflection (text!), but could lead to one of the practical usages of such miniatures as notebooks/scrapbooks (for notes or personal notes). Thanks for that, Brice.

Reply
Jeremiah Coogan
4/14/2016 11:03:59 am

Thanks, Brice!
It's worth noting that the Didache as we have it in Codex Hierosolymitanus is a composite document representing several stages of growth. In this it is similar to other compilations which are known to modern scholars as ancient church orders. The "Two Ways" material preserved in the P.Oxy. fragments also circulates in other, quite similar forms that are clearly not part of the Didache as it appears in Codex H or in our modern editions.
You're absolutely right to note the significant textual variations and the possibility that these parchment fragments are extracts from a larger text. But one should also note the possibility that they do not come from a full text of "the Didache" at all—and likewise, that Eusebius might not have been referring to the full extent of what we now call the Didache.

Reply
Brice C. Jones link
4/14/2016 08:56:02 pm

Jeremiah, by "extracts" I mean stand-alone selections. This does not necessarily mean that they were "copied" by the scribe of P.Oxy. 1782 from a larger text. They could have been copied from memory, from another exemplar containing extracts, the local liturgy, etc.

Reply
Brice C. Jones link
4/14/2016 11:15:44 am

Thank you for these comments, Thomas! I have relied on your work on miniature codices quite a lot. I think there is so much more to be said about these little books in relation to literacy, book production, ritual, personal devotion, and so on. I have stared at so many amulets over the last few years that I can't help but wonder how many of these actually served that purpose. In the case of P.Oxy. 1782, the content is indeed ritually charged. Some people's desire to rigidly distinguish between amulets and miniature codices is flawed, as I have tried to show. You and I need to discuss this more. I wish it was convenient enough to do so over beer, but distance will not allow that.

Reply
Tommy Wasserman
4/14/2016 11:46:18 am

Thanks for posting this Brice!

Reply
Brice C. Jones link
4/14/2016 08:56:27 pm

Thanks, Tommy!

Thomas J. Kraus
4/14/2016 01:32:39 pm

Yes, you are right as far as certain Christian items are concerned (amulets). But many with the Psalms and, above all, those with classical texts (e.g., Demosthenes, Isocrates) definitely served another and very practical purpose. I have recently written about that too. HOWEVER, you caught me, Brice: beer! I am Bavarian! You know what that means? We MUST fix a day for discussing in San Antonio this November, okay? Beer, talks, and let's develop a fine project how to deal with miniature formats/codices. How does this sound?

Reply
James E Sedlacek
4/14/2016 03:30:41 pm

What is the approximate dating for this manuscript?

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Brice Jones, New Testament, amulets, Greek
    Available at Amazon!

    Archives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    October 2012

    Categories

    All
    Ancient History
    Book Reviews
    Ebay Antiquities
    Egypt
    Historical Jesus
    Name That NT MS
    New Discovery
    News
    Notes On Papyri
    Online Antiquities
    Online Resources
    Oxyrhynchus
    Palaeography
    Textual Criticism
    Varia

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog
CV
Publications
Papyrological Resources
Contact
© Brice C. Jones 2020. All rights reserved.
  • Home
  • Blog
  • CV
  • Publications
  • Papyrological Resources
  • Contact