Resources for Reading Greek Manuscripts If you want to read Greek manuscripts, use these tools to demystify what looks like an alphabet soup. Clark R. BatesI have been a transcriber of Greek manuscripts for many years now, both paid and volunteer, and a question I often get as a result is how to interpret the vast number of letter combinations or “ligatures” that one finds in these texts. Over the years, I have read many books that cover this material, but have also collected various online resources that I can offer to new transcribers or those just interested in learning about these paleographic features. Incidentally, learning these forms can also help with reading early printed Greek New Testament’s since the typeface used in those editions was modelled after written Greek and includes ligatures. In this article, I will offer my best suggestions for learning how to read Greek abbreviations and ligatures as seen in biblical manuscripts. Terminology First, let’s talk terminology. While the definitions often involve some level of overlap, there are differences in whether something is a ligature, a contraction, or an abbreviation. Abbreviation — the intentional shortening of a word by removing its last few letters. Contraction — the intentional shortening of word by removing letters between the first and last letters of the word. Ligature — the joining of several letters together to create a shortened form of a word, or the replacement of that word with a symbol. An example of a καί ligature and a nu at the end of a line in Codex Sinaiticus at Mark 15:27. Image source Examples of abbreviations one might encounter in Greek manuscripts are numbers that have been replaced with their letter equivalent. Rather than spelling out the infamous mark of the beast in Revelation 13:18, for example, scribes often wrote its equivalent in letters (χξϛ). Another example would be the replacement of a final nu with an overhead line. The most obvious examples of compactions or contractions that you will find in Greek manuscripts are nomina sacra which abbreviate certain common Greek nouns. Ligatures are more difficult to provide examples for since they generally employ symbols rather than letter shapes. However, two of the ligatures most often seen in manuscripts are the combination of omicron and upsilon and the καί (kai) ligature in its various forms. History Abbreviations and contractions can be found in Greek manuscripts during the centuries in which majuscule script was used exclusively. And, while ligatures generally do not appear widely in literary work prior to the transition to minuscule script, the presence of an early καί (kai) ligature can be found already in Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. AD) as shown above. Related Greek and Arabic numerals. Illustration by Peter Gurry. Scribal Blunders in Biblical NumbersDifferent ways of writing numbers in Greek can be difficult both for ancient scribes and modern scholars. Zachary J. Cole Between the fifth and seventh centuries, as cursive majuscule became more prolific in documentary texts, ligature use increased as scribes desired a more rapid or tachygraphic mode of writing. By the ninth century, the conversion from majuscule to a literary minuscule began and the following centuries brought with them an increased production of ligatures for more words. Generally, ligatures are used to represent words of three to four letters or less, but in some creative instances, the ligature for a word like κατά (kata) can be found in place of its use as a prefix on a word like καταβαίνω (katabainō). By the fourteenth century, manuscripts produced in a more scholastic style could be comprised of almost exclusively abbreviations, compactions, and ligatures, making the text almost indecipherable to anyone unfamiliar with this form of writing. An example of lots of ligatures from GA 1969, f. 125r. The text reads: τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· οὐχ ὡς πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ ἔχοντος·1My immense thanks to Dr. Amy Myshrall who was more than willing to share these examples of ligatures when she heard of this article. Image source For present-day transcribers and students of Greek manuscripts the presence of these shapes and symbols can create an impenetrable barrier to proficiency, especially if they lack any resources to guide them through the maze. In order to help others become familiar with the forms they will regularly encounter in Greek manuscripts, I have compiled a list of resources, mostly available online for free, that can be used to help students along the way: Print resources The best print resources for reading and understanding ligatures are in several languages and are not available online are the following. English: Pat Easterling and Carol Handley, eds. Greek Scripts: An Illustrated Introduction. London: Society for the Promotion of Hellenistic Studies, 2001. Italian: Elpidio Mioni. Introduzione alla paleografia greca. Universita Di Padova Studi Bizantini E Neogreci 5 Padova: Liviana Editrice, 1973. French: Alain Blanchard. Sigles et abréviations dans les papyrus documentaires grecs: recherches de paléographie. Bulletin Supp. No. 30. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1974. Related Four Greek biblical manuscripts (Rahlfs 962, GA 2374, GA 01, and GA 1). Illustration by Peter Gurry. Four Benefits of Reading Greek ManuscriptsReading biblical manuscripts, even for beginners, brings history to life and promises untold surprises along the way. Amy S. Anderson Online resources Fortunately, living in a digital age means that many of the earlier, and still very helpful, works on paleography are now available online. The most important of which in English is T. W. Allen’s Notes on Abbreviations in Greek Manuscripts (1967). It has a full description of common ligatures and a discussion on tachygraphy making it a unique and extremely valuable resource. Next to that would be the work of the famous paleographer, Edmond Maunde Thompson whose work Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography (1893) is a bit dated, but still contains a very helpful chapter on abbreviations. Moving to resources that are produced exclusively online, the Vatican library website has an excellent page containing an introduction to Greek paleography. One of the links on the page is to a discussion on abbreviations with helpful diagrams of several ligatures. Additionally, an online PDF of the introduction to William Wallace’s (no, not that one) An Index to Greek Ligatures and Contractions has been made available, which contains his diagrams of numerous ligatures. An online website dubbed the “Textual Critic’s Corner” also has a section devoted to ligatures, with images, along with very clear scans of ligatures used in printed Greek New Testaments and other Incunabula. RelatedErasmus and the Search for the Original Text of the New TestamentMartin HeideThe Changing Fortunes of Codex VaticanusAn-Ting Yi The best resource of all I intentionally left this last online resource for the end because, if you saw it first, you would have ignored all the others! It’s called the CRBMI Searchable Ligature Tool and is the brainchild of Dr. W. Andrew Smith and the Center for Research of Biblical Manuscripts and Inscriptions (crbmi.org). Enterprising transcribers there have developed a searchable ligature/abbreviation tool that allows someone to simply type a letter combination into a search bar and it will return images for all known ligatures of that combination. It is the most thorough database that I am aware of, and it should be a tab on everyone’s computer. Lastly, I would be remiss to not also put on every reader’s radar what will be the largest compendium of all Greek ligatures ever produced. It is slated for publication in 2026, coming from the University of London. Julian Chrysostomides, et al., eds. A Lexicon of Abbreviations & Ligatures in Greek Minuscule Hands: ca. 8th century to ca. 1600. Porphyrogenitus. I would encourage all who are interested to save the information and keep an eye out for its eventual release. Conclusion Knowledge of abbreviations, contractions, and ligatures in Greek manuscripts is of vital importance for anyone in manuscript studies, be they paleographers or text critics. They represent an important era of manuscript production and cannot be ignored if one intends to read or transcribe manuscripts after the eighth century. By providing these resources here, I hope that it will encourage more readers to work with late-antique manuscripts of the Greek Bible and give them the ability to teach others to do the same.Notes1My immense thanks to Dr. Amy Myshrall who was more than willing to share these examples of ligatures when she heard of this article.
Putting the New Papyrus of Jesus’ Sayings in Context While exciting and important, much about a recently published, headline-grabbing fragment is not unique. Ian N. MillsLate last year, the Egyptian Exploration Society grabbed headlines when it announced the publication of a new cache of ancient papyri from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. The 87th volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri contained several pieces of interest to scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity. Among the newly published fragments were a vaguely “gnostic” speech attributed to Jesus (P.Oxy. 5576), part of an apocryphal dialogue between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (P.Oxy. 5577), and the remains of several otherwise unknown ancient biographies. The only item to generate headlines, however, was a small papyrus containing a portion of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. This fragment was no mere copy of Matthew’s Gospel. The papyrus now known to scholars as P.Oxy. 5575 is a combination of traditions about Jesus otherwise found in Matthew, Luke, and the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas. The fragment’s significance It’s this combination of diverse gospel materials that caught the attention of the wider-public. Upon the publication of P.Oxy. 5575, Michael Holmes, one of the fragment’s editors, explained its significance in this way: What makes this a big deal? This is the first known occurrence of the weaving together of material similar to Luke and Matthew, on the one hand, and material similar to—and otherwise known only from—the Gospel of Thomas, on the other. In this significant respect, 5575 is unique among all known papyri. “With a sharp enough scalpel,” it’s been said, “everything is unique.” And, certainly, no other fragment is exactly like P.Oxy. 5575. In a technical sense, Holmes is correct: There are no other papyri with precisely this combination of gospel parallels. But, in almost every other respect, this fragment is not unique at all. It seems to me that Holmes’s answer might leave readers with a misleading impression about the state of the evidence for other works that, like P.Oxy. 5575, combine traditions about Jesus without respect for canonical/non-canonical boundaries. There are no other papyri with precisely this combination of gospel parallels. But, in almost every other respect, this fragment is not unique at all. My goal here is neither to minimize the importance of this new piece of early Christian literature nor to exaggerate the evidence for similar works but, rather, to help the reader understand P.Oxy. 5575 by setting it into a larger comparative context. This new fragment of Jesus’ preaching is one of many early Christian compositions to bring together material about Jesus found in multiple gospels, including gospels beyond the canonical four. Works that combine canonical material The first set of helpful analogies are early fragments that combine some or all the canonical Gospels. Perhaps the best-known example is the Dura Fragment (P. Dura 10), a third century parchment from Dura Europos on the border of Roman Syria. The Dura Fragment contains only fifteen legible lines, written on one side of a parchment roll. These lines describe the women at Jesus’ crucifixion and introduce Joseph of Arimathea. RelatedWhat’s the Big Deal about a New Papyrus with Sayings of Jesus?Michael W. HolmesTaking Stock of the “First-Century Mark” SagaElijah HixsonThe Gospel of Jesus’ Wife FiascoChristian Askeland But the Dura Fragment doesn’t correspond to any known gospel. Rather, it carefully interweaves wording from the four canonical Gospels to produce a unique version of the story. For instance, one line reads “…there came a person (Matt. 27:57), being a councilor (Luke 23:50), from Erinmathea (sic), a city of Judea (Luke 23:51), his name was Joseph (Matt. 27:57), good and righteous (Luke 23:50), being a disciple of Jesus in secret because of his fear of the Jews (John 19:38) and he was expecting the kingdom of God (Luke 23:51).” Almost every word of the Dura Fragment can be traced back to one of the canonical Gospels, but the result is an intricately interwoven tapestry of the four. Similarly, the so-called “Fayyum Fragment” (P. Vienna G. 2325) combines elements from Matthew and Mark to produce a unique version of Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial. The Matthean phrasing, “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered” (Matt. 26:31) is followed by the distinctively Markan phrasing, “Before a cock twice crows…” (Mark 14:27). Like P.Oxy. 5575, the wording of the Fayyum Fragment does not match any of the canonical Gospels exactly, but the parallels with multiple gospels are undeniable. As the Dura Fragment and the Fayyum Fragment make clear, P.Oxy. 5575 is one of many early Christian works that re-combined and re-arranged traditions about Jesus. Works that combine canonical and non-canonical material These two examples are combinations of gospels now-considered canonical, whereas P.Oxy. 5575 combines the synoptics with material found in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas. In this respect, the Greek fragments of Thomas found at Oxyrhynchus provide a better analogy for the newly discovered gospel fragment. The only complete manuscript of Thomas contains 114 sayings of Jesus in Coptic. About two-thirds of these sayings appear to be drawn from the canonical Gospels. For dozens of additional sayings, however, there are no canonical parallels. Probably, the compiler of Thomas composed some of these non-canonical sayings from scratch, but parallels between Thomas’s non-canonical sayings and other early Christian sources suggest that the compiler drew on additional non-canonical gospels in composing the Gospel of Thomas. P.Oxy. 654, for instance, contains a saying of Jesus (GThom 2) that Clement of Alexandria says belonged to the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews (Stromateis 2.9.45; 5.14.96). Gospel of the HebrewsThomas 2 (Greek; P.Oxy. 654)Thomas 2 (Coptic)The one who seeks will not stop until he finds. And when he finds, he will be amazed. And when he is amazed, he will reign. And when he reigns, he will rest.Let the one who seeks not stop [seeking until] he finds. And when he finds, [he will be amazed. And] when he is amazed he will reign. And [when he reigns over everything] he will rest.Let the one who seeks not stop seeking until he finds. And when he finds, he will be troubled. And when he is troubled, he will be amazed and will become king over everything. Probably the compiler of Thomas drew this saying of Jesus from the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews. And in P.Oxy. 654, this saying sits alongside Thomas 3, a version of the saying found at Luke 17:20–25. Side-by-side, this fragment preserves a combination of canonical and non-canonical gospel material. In this respect, P.Oxy. 654 is a close parallel to what we find in P.Oxy. 5575. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Other good analogies include P.Oxy. 4009 and the Egerton Gospel (BL Egerton Papyrus 2). The former is a fragmentary papyrus containing parallels to Matthew 10:16, Luke 7:36–50, and a non-canonical conversation between Jesus and Peter cited by the preacher of Second Clement. The Egerton Gospel, likewise, weaves together sayings of Jesus found in John 5 and 10, several synoptic stories, and a story about Jesus sowing seeds on the banks of the Jordan that has no canonical parallel. We do not know what ancient readers called these gospels, but fragmentary remains provide additional evidence of early Christians combining canonical and non-canonical materials about Jesus. Further examples If we look beyond the papyri, there is more evidence for the combination of canonical and non-canonical Jesus traditions. The Epistle of the Apostles, for instance, is an early second century, theologically-orthodox composition. It contains a summary of Jesus’ nativity, life, death, and resurrection. Most of this gospel-summary corresponds to one or more of the canonical lives of Jesus. However, the author also includes a scene of Jesus as a school boy, found only in the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The result is a gospel-like narrative that, again, weaves together strands from both canonical and non-canonical books. In the second half of the second century, a Christian teacher named Tatian composed his own gospel by interweaving stories from earlier gospels. Later Christians called Tatian’s composition “The Diatessaron,” which translates to “the [gospel] through the four [gospels].” Although Tatian himself seems to have revised the content and wording of his sources, almost every line of the Diatessaron can be attributed to one of the four now-canonical gospels. There are, however, a few important exceptions, most notably a passage attributed to Tatian’s Diatessaron as found in the fourth-century Commentary on the Gospel by Ephrem. Ephrem, Comm. 14.24Thomas 30 (Greek; P.Oxy 1)Thomas 30 (Coptic)…when he said, Where there is one, I [am there], lest all those who are solitary be sad. Where there is one, I [am there].1Translation from Carmel McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron : An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).Jesus says, Where there are three, they are godless And where there is one-alone, I say I am with him.Jesus says, Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him. This saying of Jesus, not found in any manuscript of any canonical gospel, appears in the Gospel of Thomas. Like P.Oxy. 5575, therefore, either Tatian or one of Tatian’s sources must have combined canonical Jesus traditions with a saying otherwise known to us only from a non-canonical gospel. There are, additionally, a few pieces of non-canonical material found in more-or-less complete manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. The copy of Matthew in Codex Sinaiticus, for instance, contains a version of Jesus’ “consider the lily” speech in Matthew 6:28 that says the lilies neither “card nor spin nor work,” precise phrasing otherwise only known from the Gospel of Thomas. Related Portraits of the four evangelists from GA 773 (10th c.) Why There Are Just Four Gospels in the BibleDespite tales of conspiracy, there are good historical and theological reasons why the Church recognized four—and only four—Gospels. C. E. Hill Likewise, the famous story of the “Woman Caught in Adultery,” according to Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman’s study, was known from the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews. At some point in the second or third centuries, readers inserted this story into manuscripts of the canonical John. Of course, P.Oxy. 5575 seems to reflect a more thoroughly interwoven combination of diverse gospel traditions than what is found in anything preserved in the complete manuscripts from the fourth century. But these traces of gospel combinations show that some early readers were happy to bring together the words of Jesus as found in canonical and non-canonical gospels. Conclusion P.Oxy. 5575 is one of several pieces of early Christian literature that shows how some ancient readers collected and combined Jesus material otherwise found in canonical and non-canonical gospels. All the analogies to P.Oxy. 5575 that we’ve considered above make up only a tiny fraction of our documentary evidence for early Christian gospel literature. The vast majority of Christian literary papyri are either readily identifiable with specific works (e.g., P.Oxy. 4) or clearly distinct from any known work (e.g., P.Oxy. 840). And the practice of harmonizing the text of the canonical Gospels is surprisingly uncommon in the papyri. Still, P.Oxy. 5575 is one of several pieces of early Christian literature that shows how some ancient readers collected and combined Jesus material otherwise found in canonical and non-canonical gospels. In particular, this fragment is intriguing new evidence that some early Christians continued to re-write and re-arrange stories about Jesus in the same way that the authors of Matthew and Luke used earlier gospels. As I hope to have shown, P.Oxy. 5575 is not the only evidence for this practice. But it is important new evidence for this aspect of early Christian book culture.Notes1Translation from Carmel McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron : An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
A Newly Digitized Bible Reveals the Origins of the King James Version A one-of-a-kind Bible used by the King James translators offers a rare glimpse of their textual decisions. Timothy BergThough often thought to be a fresh translation, the King James Bible is, at heart, a revision of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible that was produced in three stages (translation companies, General Meeting, and final revisions). It was a monumental feat and one that has influenced English Bibles ever since. Fortunately, we know more about the process that produced the King James Bible (KJB) than just about any other translation of its time. One key source involves the actual Bibles used by the revisers. According to an extant bill dated 10 May 1605, King James I purchased “40 large church bibles for the translators” from Royal Printer Robert Barker for the translators to use.1“MS. Don. c. 88” (Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, n.d.); Paul Morgan, “A King’s Printer At Work: Two Documents of Robert Barker,” The Bodleian Library Record 13, no. 5 (1990): 370; A massive cache of documents relating to the King’s printing house, the largest collection of manuscript materials relating to any single printing house in the Jacobean period, have recently been studied by Graham Rees and Maria Wakely, Publishing, Politics, and Culture: The King’s Printers in the Reign of James I and VI (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). The translators worked directly on these unbound pages in the first stage of work. As far as we know, only a single copy remains. This remaining copy, a 1602 Bishops’ Bible in the Bodleian Library at Oxford University, collects handwritten notes reflecting alterations made while crafting the KJB. Thankfully, it has recently been digitized and made completely accessible online for the first time ever.2Previously catalogued as BL Bib. Eng. 1602 b.1, it was given a new pressmark in Sep. 2013: Arch. A b. 18. My thanks to Chris Yetzer for informing me about its digitization. The document’s importance to scholars studying the history of the English Bible is hard to overestimate. This article introduces the history of its study and gives a small sample of its value for understanding the work of the KJB translators. The document’s importance to scholars studying the history of the English Bible is hard to overestimate. The 1602 Bishops’ Bible with the translators’ notes (left) and the final product in the 1611 KJB (right). Images from Bodleian Library and UPenn Previous scholarship The Bodleian Library acquired the volume in 1646 when it was described as “a large Bible wherein is written downe all the Alterations of the last translacōn.”3William Dunn Macray, Annals of the Bodleian Library, Oxford: With a Notice of the Earlier Library of the University, 2nd ed. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1890), 102. The first critical notice was in 1868 by B. F. Westcott. When preparing his history of the English Bible, he requested a summary of its notes from John Wordsworth, Bishop of Salisbury, and Bodleian Librarian Henry Coxe. Unfortunately, Westcott mistakenly thought it represented “a scholar’s collation of the [KJB] and Bishops’ texts” rather than the source for the KJB itself. In 1888, Nicolas Pocock pronounced Westcott’s judgment “very doubtful,” and Edwin Willoughby later took the document more seriously as a genuine draft and brought it to public attention.4Nicholas Pocock, “The Bishops’ Bible of 1568, 1572, and 1602.,” The Athenaeum, no. No. 3148 (February 25, 1888): 243–45; Edwin Eliott Willoughby, The Making of the King James Bible: A Monograph with Comparisons from the Bishops Bible and the Manuscript Annotations of 1602, with an Original Leaf from the Great “She” Bible of 1611 (Los Angeles: Printed for Dawson’s Book Shop at The Plantin Press, 1956); Adam Nicolson, Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible (London: Harpercollins, 2003), 151–52. In the 20th century, Edward Jacobs examined the Old Testament annotations in detail in his 1972 dissertation but, sadly, had to rely on microfilms; he extended this study in later articles to its New Testament annotations.5Edward Craney Jacobs, “A Bodleian Bishops’ Bible, 1602 (Bib. Eng. 1602 b. 1): A Preliminary Study of the Old Testament Annotations and Their Relationship to the Authorized Version, 1611.” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Alabama, Auburn University, 1972), 14; Edward Craney Jacobs, “Two Stages of Old Testament Translation for the King James Bible,” The Library S6-II, no. 1 (March 1, 1980): 16, fn. 2; Jacobs, “A Bodleian Bishops’ Bible, 1602 (Bib. Eng. 1601 B. 1)”; Edward Craney Jacobs, “An Old Testament Copytext for the 1611 Bible,” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 69, no. 1 (1975): 1–15; Jacobs, “Two Stages of Old Testament Translation for the King James Bible”; Edward Craney Jacobs, “King James’s Translators: The Bishops’ Bible New Testament Revised,” The Library s6–14, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 100–126. As Jacobs finished his dissertation, Irena Backus started a thesis studying Theodore Beza’s impact on the KJB New Testament which also employed the document, their different conclusions interacting only in a footnote.6Irena Dorota Backus, “Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament” (DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford, 1976); Irena Backus, The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament: The Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament, ed. Dikran Y. Hadidian (Pittsburgh: Wipf & Stock, 1980), 28, fn. 63. A decade later Jacobs published, with Ward Allen, a transcription of the Gospels with an introduction and, more recently, David Norton has used the document to sift translators’ intentions from printers’ errors while editing the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible for Cambridge University Press. What’s in this Bible? What’s in the document and what makes it so important to scholars? The answer is the handwritten notes themselves. In the Old Testament, these annotations cover almost every book, though in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, they end after chapter four. (Lamentations and the Apocrypha are unannotated.) Letters were used to identify other translations as the sources for suggested changes. Source The notes also reveal other translations used by the revisers besides the Bishops’ Bible itself. Back in 1868, Westcott described a set of miniscule letters (g, t, and j) which identify these other sources. He correctly identified “g” as the Geneva Bible, the KJB’s famous predecessor. Other scholars have suggested that “t” is for Tremellius and “j” is for Junius or Jerome’s Vulgate.7See Jacobs, “A Bodleian Bishops’ Bible, 1602 (Bib. Eng. 1601 B. 1),” 30–31, fn. 44; Jeffrey Alan Miller, “‘Better, as in the Geneva’: The Role of the Geneva Bible in Drafting the King James Version,” Journal of Medieval & Early Modern Studies 47, no. 3 (September 2017): 517–43. Dating the translators’ notes Dating the Old Testament annotations is complicated as they stretch across text assigned to all three translation companies and are written in what Jacobs believed is the same hand. This means, as Miller points out, that “the Old Testament annotations, in the aggregate, must postdate the company stage of the translation process, since one person could not have been part of three different translation companies in three different locations.”8Jeffrey Alan Miller, “The Earliest Known Draft of the King James Bible: Samuel Ward’s Draft of 1 Esdras and Wisdom 3–4,” in Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord, 2018, 216. Several dates have been proposed, including ones that suggest the notes are an actual printers’ master copy, a copy of the printers’ master copy, notes made at the General Meeting, or a revision sent to the General Meeting. Miller argues that, most likely, “the annotations were made in preparation for the general, revisory meeting in London, assimilating into a single working manuscript the changes that had been separately proposed by the three Old Testament translation companies.” This would mean the handwriting is likely that of a scribe, though it is also possible they “could have been made at the general meeting itself.”9Miller, 216. The New Testament annotations are less extensive. The text of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is heavily revised, but in John, only chapters 17–21 are annotated. Elsewhere, only brief notes are found in a handful of places (Eph. 4:8; 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 3:13; and 2 Pet. 1:10). RelatedBorrowing from the KJV Bank and TrustMark WardSeven Common Misconceptions about the King James BibleTimothy BergThe Legacy of the First Revised Bible TranslationsJohn D. Meade Dating the New Testament annotations is simplified by the fact that they occur across text assigned to only one company. Even here, however, the dating is complicated by the fact that the annotations are in three separate hands.10Allen and Jacobs, The Coming of the King James Gospels, 5–7. Miller gives this as a reason why “the draft of the Gospels seems to be assignable to the company stage of the translation process, distinct from the draft of the Old Testament now bound together in the same Bodleian volume.”11Miller, “The Earliest Known Draft of the King James Bible,” 216. The different hands would then represent either the company internally critiquing its own draft or the input of one or more of the other companies upon it. The process of producing the most famous English Bible in history was obviously not a simple one! Insights into the translators’ decisions One of the most interesting and unexplored areas of the translators’ work that this document illuminates is how they wrestled with textual issues. Here are four examples. 1. Mary’s purification (Luke 2:22) I have noted before that, in the Christmas story, the translators’ base text for Luke 2:22 explains that Mary brought Jesus to the temple because it was the time of “her purification,” without any notes. Virtually all the textual data read “their purification” (including either Joseph or Jesus in the purification). Greek editions at the time differed, particularly those of Erasmus and Beza. What did the KJB translators do? This document shows a complex back-and-forth. First, “Or, theyr” was added to the main text (which read “her”) to indicate a textual variant. Then they changed their minds on the base text but still wanted a note. “Her” was crossed out in the text, “theyr” written above it, and in the margin “theyr” was replaced by “her.” Now the main text would read “theyr” with a marginal note giving the alternative: “Or, her.” This revision too was apparently overturned, presumably at the General Meeting. In the end, the KJB ended where it began: “her” in the text and nothing in the margin. The text at Luke 2:22, showing a series of changes from “her” to “their” and back to “her.” Source 2. Jesus’ rebuke of Satan (Matt. 4:10) Another example appears in Matthew 4:10 in the case of Jesus’ rebuke of the Devil, a rebuke later echoed after Peter’s confession (Matt. 16:23). The translators’ base text has “get thee hence behind me” (opisō mou). But they crossed out this last phrase. Why? Because the editions of the Greek New Testament they had available from Erasmus (1535), Stephanus (1550), and Beza (1598) all have the shorter reading in the text (though each mentions the longer reading). The words “behinde mee” are crossed out in Matt 4:10. Source 3. Greeting our friends (Matt. 5:47) Matthew 5:47 provides an example of how the translators wanted their readers to see more textual variation than what ultimately made it into the final version. The Bishops’ text has Jesus asking if his followers only greet “your brethren”—with no note. The KJB revisers added a marginal note that read “Or, frendes,” indicating the variant in Greek (philous vs. adelphous). As before, the two readings were known to them because of the Greek New Testaments of Erasmus and Beza. But, this note was not to survive. It was struck down by later revisers and didn’t make it to the published 1611 KJB. The words “or friends” were added to the margin but never made it into the final King James. Source 4. Two longer marginal notes (Luke 17:36; Matt. 26:26) Other marginal changes did make the cut. In Luke 17:36, the Bishops’ Bible has no marginal note, but the revisers wanted to alert their readers to a variant by adding a note saying: “The 36 verse is wanting here in the most of the Greeke copyes.” The revisers at Stationers’ Hall made a few minor changes in wording to the note but included it in the published text. A note added in the left margin about manuscripts missing Luke 17:36. Source Likewise, in Matthew 26:26 the text of the Last Supper says that he broke the bread when he had taken it and “given thankes,” without a note. The revisers crossed this out, added “blessed and” beside it, and added the marginal note, “Many Greeke copies have, given thankes.” This switched the base text from “given thankes” (eucharistēsas) to “blessed” (eulogēsas) and alerted the reader to the variant. The note was tweaked slightly but still published. The note added in the left margin for Matthew 26:26. Source This is just a sample of what this Bible reveals about the translators’ textual work. All the KJB’s notes that reflect textual variants were collected by F. H. A. Scrivener and his list remains the best treatment of the translators as textual critics. Scrivener, however, never examined this document. Conclusion For the translators, textual variants like these were part of a larger category they called “differences of readings.” This category included not only textual uncertainties but also lexical uncertainties, where words could have several different meanings. Today, we tend to think of these as separate categories. But applying our distinction to the KJB translators would be an anachronism.12As seen in the comments of Miles Smith defending the KJB’s marginal notes, which discuss both textual and lexical differences in the same section, and in the report of translator Samuel Ward to the Synod of Dordt, suggests. Samuel Ward, “SSC MS Ward L1” (Sidney Sussex College, n.d.), fol. 5r; Anthony Milton, ed., The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), vol. 13, Church of England Record Society (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 2005), 138–40; Christian Moser, Donald Sinnema, and Herman J. Selderhuis, eds., Acta of the Synod of Dordt, vol. I, Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618-1610) (KG, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 17, 203; Samuel Ward, “British Statement on the Method of Bible Translation,” in Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt, ed. Anthony Milton, vol. II/2, Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1610) (KG, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 69, 70. Perhaps detailed examination of the document in the future from a text-critical perspective can catalogue all annotations reflecting textual decisions, painting a clearer picture of the KJB translators as textual critics. Viewing the images online is a visual reminder of how many decisions Bible translators have to make. This is just a small sample of the kind of insight that can be gained from studying this source of the most important English Bible in history. Viewing the images online provides an immediate, visual reminder of how many decisions Bible translators have to make. Further study will undoubtedly bring to light further insights into how the translators made their decisions. May we all be grateful for the push towards open access upon which human knowledge thrives! An earlier version of this article could have given the impression that F. H. A. Scrivener’s list of the KJB’s notes was collected by him in 1910. What was meant is that his list was last published, posthumously, in 1910.Notes1“MS. Don. c. 88” (Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, n.d.); Paul Morgan, “A King’s Printer At Work: Two Documents of Robert Barker,” The Bodleian Library Record 13, no. 5 (1990): 370; A massive cache of documents relating to the King’s printing house, the largest collection of manuscript materials relating to any single printing house in the Jacobean period, have recently been studied by Graham Rees and Maria Wakely, Publishing, Politics, and Culture: The King’s Printers in the Reign of James I and VI (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).2Previously catalogued as BL Bib. Eng. 1602 b.1, it was given a new pressmark in Sep. 2013: Arch. A b. 18. My thanks to Chris Yetzer for informing me about its digitization.3William Dunn Macray, Annals of the Bodleian Library, Oxford: With a Notice of the Earlier Library of the University, 2nd ed. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1890), 102.4Nicholas Pocock, “The Bishops’ Bible of 1568, 1572, and 1602.,” The Athenaeum, no. No. 3148 (February 25, 1888): 243–45; Edwin Eliott Willoughby, The Making of the King James Bible: A Monograph with Comparisons from the Bishops Bible and the Manuscript Annotations of 1602, with an Original Leaf from the Great “She” Bible of 1611 (Los Angeles: Printed for Dawson’s Book Shop at The Plantin Press, 1956); Adam Nicolson, Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible (London: Harpercollins, 2003), 151–52.5Edward Craney Jacobs, “A Bodleian Bishops’ Bible, 1602 (Bib. Eng. 1602 b. 1): A Preliminary Study of the Old Testament Annotations and Their Relationship to the Authorized Version, 1611.” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Alabama, Auburn University, 1972), 14; Edward Craney Jacobs, “Two Stages of Old Testament Translation for the King James Bible,” The Library S6-II, no. 1 (March 1, 1980): 16, fn. 2; Jacobs, “A Bodleian Bishops’ Bible, 1602 (Bib. Eng. 1601 B. 1)”; Edward Craney Jacobs, “An Old Testament Copytext for the 1611 Bible,” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 69, no. 1 (1975): 1–15; Jacobs, “Two Stages of Old Testament Translation for the King James Bible”; Edward Craney Jacobs, “King James’s Translators: The Bishops’ Bible New Testament Revised,” The Library s6–14, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 100–126.6Irena Dorota Backus, “Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament” (DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford, 1976); Irena Backus, The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament: The Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament, ed. Dikran Y. Hadidian (Pittsburgh: Wipf & Stock, 1980), 28, fn. 63.7See Jacobs, “A Bodleian Bishops’ Bible, 1602 (Bib. Eng. 1601 B. 1),” 30–31, fn. 44; Jeffrey Alan Miller, “‘Better, as in the Geneva’: The Role of the Geneva Bible in Drafting the King James Version,” Journal of Medieval & Early Modern Studies 47, no. 3 (September 2017): 517–43.8Jeffrey Alan Miller, “The Earliest Known Draft of the King James Bible: Samuel Ward’s Draft of 1 Esdras and Wisdom 3–4,” in Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord, 2018, 216.9Miller, 216.10Allen and Jacobs, The Coming of the King James Gospels, 5–7.11Miller, “The Earliest Known Draft of the King James Bible,” 216.12As seen in the comments of Miles Smith defending the KJB’s marginal notes, which discuss both textual and lexical differences in the same section, and in the report of translator Samuel Ward to the Synod of Dordt, suggests. Samuel Ward, “SSC MS Ward L1” (Sidney Sussex College, n.d.), fol. 5r; Anthony Milton, ed., The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), vol. 13, Church of England Record Society (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 2005), 138–40; Christian Moser, Donald Sinnema, and Herman J. Selderhuis, eds., Acta of the Synod of Dordt, vol. I, Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618-1610) (KG, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 17, 203; Samuel Ward, “British Statement on the Method of Bible Translation,” in Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt, ed. Anthony Milton, vol. II/2, Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1610) (KG, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 69, 70.
What’s the Big Deal about a New Papyrus with Sayings of Jesus? A second-century date for a new Greek fragment with gospel material makes it unique among papyri. Michael W. HolmesOn August 31st, the Egypt Exploration Society published the latest volume (LXXXVII) in its long-running series on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (volume 1 appeared in 1898). The volume presents many interesting papyri, including a collection of short biographies of eminent Romans and a fragment of the book of Revelation. Thanks to an article in the Daily Beast, however, the spotlight has fallen on a small fragment (about 1.3ʺ wide × 3.6ʺ high) that contains sayings of Jesus in a form similar to the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and Thomas. Why is this such a big deal? Let’s find out. What Are the Oxyrhynchus Papyri? The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a massive trove of papyri (estimates range upwards of half a million) excavated near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt (modern el-Bahnasa) during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by a team organized by Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt. The site is an ancient trash dump, where public and private documents of all sorts were discarded. These included tax assessments, court records, business letters, private letters (even one written by a student at school writing home to ask his parents to send more money), and literary documents. Most were written in Greek, but also Coptic, Latin, Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and other languages are represented. Grenfell and Hunt in Egypt. Wikipedia The papyri—mostly in small fragments—range in date from the third century BC (the Ptolemaic era) to 640 AD (the end of the Roman period). When one of these papyri is published, it is given a standard prefix and a reference number. For example, the very first one published is P.Oxy. 1; the one that is catching so much interest now is P.Oxy. 5575. The literary papyri (perhaps 10% or so of the total) encompass a wide range of Classical and Hellenistic literature. They also include a fair number of Christian writings of all sorts, including prayers (e.g., P.Oxy. 407, 4010), hymns (e.g., P.Oxy. 1786), letters, amulets (e.g., P.Oxy. 1077), homilies, and literary documents. RelatedPutting the New Papyrus of Jesus’ Sayings in ContextIan N. MillsTaking Stock of the “First-Century Mark” SagaElijah Hixson This last category includes fragments of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, several Pauline letters, some Catholic letters, and Revelation, as well as fragments of the Gospel of Thomas (P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655),1These fragments were not recognized as fragments of the Gospel of Thomas until after the discovery of a complete Coptic translation of Thomas near Nag Hammadi in 1945. Gospel of Mary (P.Oxy. 3525), perhaps (but not likely) Gospel of Peter (P.Oxy. 2949, 4009), some unidentified “gospel” fragments (P.Oxy. 210, 840, 1224), several fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas, and one of the Didache (P.Oxy. 1782). So, P.Oxy. 5575 is one of the latest additions to this relatively large category of Christian literary texts from Oxyrhynchus. Why is it attracting so much attention? There are two reasons: first, its content, and second, its (probable) date. What’s in the New Fragment? While it’s not possible to represent accurately the form and layout of the Greek text in English translation, the following layout is an attempt to give an impression of the layout of the content of the fragment. (References in the following discussion to line numbers apply to this English presentation only—they do not correspond to the lines of the Greek fragment.) Recto (→)Verso (↑)… he died (?). [I tell] you: [do not] worry [about] your [life,] what you will eat, [or] about the body, what [you will wear.] For I tell you: [unless] you fast [from the world,] you will never find [the Kingdom,] and unless you … the world, you [will never …] the Father … the birds, how … and [your (?)] heavenly Father [feeds them (?).] You therefore …[Consider the lilies,] how they grow … Solomon … in [his] glory … [if] the Father [clothes] grass which dries up and is thrown into the oven, [he will clothe (?)] you … You [also (?)] therefore … for [your] Father [knows what (?)] … need you have. [Instead (?)] seek [his kingdom (?),] and [all these things (?)] will be given [to you (?)] … An English translation of P.Oxy. 5575 The recto (left) and verso (right) of P.Oxy. 5575 as photographed in 2012 before another small piece of the fragment was identified. Photos by Ardon Bar-Hama The first decipherable letters on the recto side (corresponding to the “odd number” page) of 5575 may be part of the last word of the main saying in Gospel of Thomas 63.1–3 (a saying similar to Luke 12:16–21). Gospel of Thomas, 63: “Jesus said: There was a rich man who had much money. He said: ‘I will use my money so that I may sow and reap and plant and fill my storehouses with produce, so that I lack nothing.’ This was what he thought in his heart. And that night he died.” The saying then continues: “Whoever has ears let him hear.” (This saying survives only in Coptic.) Then follows a saying similar to Luke 12:22/Matt 6:25a (lines 1–5). Next comes a saying similar to Gospel of Thomas 27 (lines 6–10), followed by words similar to Luke 12:24/Matt 6:25b–26 (lines 11–14). Gospel of Thomas, 27: “Jesus said, ‘If you do not fast to the world, you will not find the kingdom of God; if you do not keep the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the Father.’” This is from the only Greek fragment that preserves saying 27 (P.Oxy. 1). The Coptic version is similar, but it lacks “Jesus said” and “of God.” One interesting difference involves the Greek word for “birds”: in line 11, 5575 has ornea, instead of korakas (Luke) or peteina (Matthew). Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: On the verso (“even number page” side) the text is similar to Luke 12:27–28, 30b–31/Matt 6:28b–30, 32b–33, with some differences, larger and smaller. An example of a larger difference: whereas Luke 12:30 and Matt 6:32 end with two “reminders” (i.e., that gentiles seek after such things, and that the heavenly father knows that we need them), 5575—like Justin Martyr, who also quotes this passage (1 Apol. 15.15)—mentions only the second. Why is it important? What makes this a big deal? This is the first known occurrence of the weaving together of material similar to Luke and Matthew, on the one hand, and material similar to—and otherwise known only from—the Gospel of Thomas, on the other. In this significant respect, 5575 is unique among all known papyri. If the proposed date is right, then 5575 would be … one of the earliest witnesses to any Christian document. As for the date: if the proposed date—probably “second century”—is right, then 5575 would be the earliest extant witness to sayings associated with the Gospel of Thomas, and one of the earliest witnesses to any Christian document. Now, put the two issues together—a relatively early date, and a unique interweaving of sayings known from Luke and Matthew with a saying known only from the Gospel of Thomas—and the questions and possibilities overflow. As the editors observe, 5575 may be from a sayings collection, or, given the flow from one saying to another, perhaps a discourse. One possibility is that it represents, or is closely related to, a work which was not dependent upon Gos. Thom. but rather served as a source for it. Or, alternatively, the Gospel of Thomas may be a source for the saying in this fragment—a view that would, in light of the fragment’s early date, require a major re-assessment for the composition of Gospel of Thomas (of these last two possibilities, the former seems far more likely). Remaining questions More questions include: who wrote it, and why? What was his major concern? What does this fragment tell us about second-century Christianity that we didn’t already know? These are all excellent questions, but unfortunately for us, the fragment is so brief and so lacking in any larger context that we simply don’t have the information to answer them. We can speculate, but it is important to keep in mind the difference between speculation and evidence—and to enjoy the thrill of a new discovery. Several papyrus fragments of Revelation have been found at Oxyrhynchus. An earlier version of this article suggested otherwise.Notes1These fragments were not recognized as fragments of the Gospel of Thomas until after the discovery of a complete Coptic translation of Thomas near Nag Hammadi in 1945.
What We Know about the People behind the Dead Sea Scrolls History, archeology, and the scrolls themselves reveal a fascinating picture of a unique Jewish community. Anthony FergusonThe ancient Jewish group known as the Essenes remained in obscurity for over two millennia. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament mentions this group, and although ancient authors like Josephus, Philo, and Pliny describe them, in addition to some church fathers, the Essenes never captured the public’s interest quite like the Pharisees did. All that changed one day in 1948 after the exhilarating announcement that ancient biblical manuscripts had been discovered near the Dead Sea and now known the world over as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This announcement would soon catapult the Essenes from obscurity to the front pages of every major newspaper. The Essenes became popular almost immediately. Despite this popularity, knowledge of the Essenes is often quite basic for most scholars and interested laypeople. Most would correctly identify the Essenes as a Jewish sect, but a more detailed description evades many. So who were the Essenes? We need to first decide on the relevant evidence which is not completely straightforward. Scholars disagree about the reliability of the historical accounts, the nature of the Qumran settlement, and the group described in the non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls. So which evidence is relevant for this conversation, and ultimately, what does the evidence tell us about this mysterious group of Jews that has captured our attention? Putting the puzzling pieces together The community described in the Qumran manuscripts does not designate itself as Essenes. Rather, they designate themselves with titles like “the Yahad” (e.g., 1QS 5:3), “the sons of light” (e.g., 1QS 2:16), and “members of the covenant” (CD 2:2). This discrepancy, therefore, compels us to start our investigation with the sources that use the name “Essenes.” Among these accounts, Philo (Hypothetica 11:1–18; Every Good Man is Free 12:75–13:91), Josephus (Jewish Wars 2.119–161; Life 1.10–12; Antiquities 18.18–22), and Pliny (Natural History 5.25) are the most well-known and most cited—and for good reason. These authors were contemporaries of the group. Their accounts are rather detailed, and Pliny’s description, in particular, provides us with “GPS coordinates” to the Essenes’s settlement! Thus, we will begin with the historical accounts and then proceed to the evidence from Qumran and the scrolls deposited nearby. The evidence 1. Historical accounts The historical accounts should be interpreted critically since scholars have pointed out apparent inconsistencies and embellishments in these accounts. For example, Pliny says the group has existed for thousands of ages. Despite this reality, the accounts have considerable overlap, and this overlap illustrates the accounts’ credibility. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: 2. The site Pliny’s “GPS coordinates” link the site of Qumran to the Essenes, so the site of Qumran is a good second step. In his Natural History, Pliny described three locations on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, and he located the Essene settlement north of Masada and Engedi (Natural History 5.25). To the best of our knowledge, Qumran is the only settlement that fits this description at this time.1James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022), 167. This geographical and chronological correspondence demonstrates an important link between Pliny’s accounts and the site of Qumran and strongly suggests that this was an Essene settlement. In addition to Pliny’s description, the site’s archeology and artifacts provide a further link between the Essenes and Qumran.2Jodi Magness’ excellent book The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls,2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021) traces several similarities between the archaeology of the site and the historical accounts including the toilet habits, nature of the pottery, and the nature of the site summarized here. For example, Josephus described the Essenes’ modest approach to defecating. The Essenes, according to Josephus, would defecate privately and then wash afterward (Jewish Wars 2.148–149). The archaeological site at Qumran provides key details about the Essenes. Photo credit This historical account interestingly aligns with what scholars have identified as a toilet at Qumran. The toilet is roofed, secluded to ensure privacy, and connected to a ritual bath. Although concern for privacy and a desire to wash oneself after this act fits our modern hygienic perspective, Josephus’s account demonstrates that these practices were exceptional. The lack of ornate features and decorative pottery likewise aligns with Philo’s account that the Essenes despised luxury (Philo, Hypothetica 11.11). 3. The manuscripts The Qumran manuscripts, often called the Dead Sea Scrolls, are likewise important data when investigating the identity of the Essenes. Although some scholars argue that Jews fleeing the Jewish revolts deposited these manuscripts in the caves, this suggestion is unlikely since the non-biblical texts describe a community that had separated from mainline Judaism (1QS 8:9–18; 9:20).3James C. VanderKam has a helpful concise discussion of this topic in Early Judaism, 166–167. Scholars have rightly discovered many similarities between the historical accounts and these texts, which further suggest that these texts were deposited there by Essenes.4Magness, for example, discusses many of these similarities in The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed. Josephus’s description of the initiation process in Jewish Wars 2.137–142 aligns with the community’s process outlined in their handbook (see 1QS 6:14–23). The penal code described in both accounts is similar. For example, both forbid spitting during a meeting of the assembly (1QS 7:13; Jewish Wars 2.147). Members of the Essenes were prohibited from sharing their community’s secrets (Jewish Wars 2.142); 1QS has a similar prohibition (1QS 9:17). The similarities strongly suggest that these manuscripts were Essene documents. A scholar studies the Great Isaiah Scroll. Image credit So, who were the Essenes? The historical accounts, the site of Qumran, and the Qumran manuscripts all provide valuable evidence for understanding the identity of the Essenes. What do we learn about them from this information? Here are six characteristics that we know about this group. 1. Essenes were sectarians The Essenes separated from mainline Judaism because of different interpretations of the law, or halakhic disagreements. These disagreements are outlined in a text labeled 4QMMT (MMT is an abbreviation for the Hebrew words translated as “Some Percepts of the Torah). This group further disagreed with the lifestyle of the Hasmonean rulers. These ethical concerns are outlined in a commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab). Here, we learn that the “wicked priest” (a high priest from the temple) pursued the Teacher of Righteousness (the leader of the Essene community) to destroy him on the Day of Atonement. The Essenes separated from Judaism in Jerusalem for ethical and hermeneutical reasons. 2. Essenes lived throughout Israel Josephus makes this point when he describes how the Essenes did not occupy just one town, but lived together closely in many towns (Jewish Wars 2). This detail is verified in the community’s handbook (see 1QS 6:2) and by the archaeological evidence. The incongruence, for example, between the number of kitchen dishes that number over one thousand and the maximum capacity of permanent residences implies that this could not be a permanent residence for all Essences.5See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 79–81 for this evidence and conclusion. Rather, Qumran probably functioned as a community center as described by Jodi Magness and others. 3. Essenes cherished the Bible Approximately one-fourth of the scrolls discovered at Qumran are biblical texts.6See Emmanuel Tov’s statistics in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis, Fortress, 2011), 95. In addition, the Qumran community composed numerous other literary documents based on the biblical text. These include commentaries, liturgical compositions, compositions that reworked beloved Bible stories, and harmonized texts that topically rearranged some of the biblical texts. Moreover, if ten men were gathered in the same location, they were required to designate someone to study the Law continually (1QS 6:6). The Essenes cherished the Bible. Approximately one-fourth of the scrolls discovered at Qumran are biblical texts. 4. Essenes were devout Josephus and Philo both describe their devotion to the Lord and to the Scriptures as praiseworthy. The penal code outlined in their handbook (1QS) prescribed up to a two-year punishment for any member who sinned unintentionally while an intentional sin could lead to banishment (1QS 9:1). Strict obedience to the Scriptures was expected from community members. 5. Essenes were extremely hierarchal Newly initiated community members would immediately be assigned a rank in the community based on their understanding of the Law and the integrity of their life (1QS 6:1–2, 18). This rank dictated where members sat during meetings and when they were permitted to speak. Related The Great Isaiah Scroll was among the first discovered. Today, it is housed at the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. Photo by Dennis Jarvis How Much Can the Most Famous Dead Sea Scroll Prove?The Great Isaiah Scroll is a crucial piece of the Old Testament puzzle, but it doesn’t give us the whole picture. Anthony Ferguson 6. Essenes were (somewhat) countercultural The Essenes understood slavery as a moral evil, and that this institution promulgated injustice, was contrary to nature, and outraged the law of equity (see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.21–22 and Philo, Every Good Man is Free 12.79). In this way, this community should be applauded. Yet, their view of women was chauvinistic. They described women as sexual predators and selfish creatures who promoted dissension (Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.121; Jewish Antiquities 18.22; Philo, Hypothetica 11.14). Some historical authors claimed that this negative view of women was the reason some refrained from marriage. Thus, they upheld the dignity of humanity in a way that was quite countercultural but not in every way. Conclusion A fairly clear picture of the Essenes emerges from considering the historical accounts, the site of Qumran, and the manuscripts deposited nearby. Of course, Essenism was not monolithic. Some Essenes married while others did not, and their religious beliefs and attitudes toward Judaism in Jerusalem did not remain static. Despite these details, a careful investigation of the sources allows us to deepen our knowledge of this group in several key ways: they were a hierarchal and devout sect of Jews spread throughout Judea who treasured the Bible. Perhaps, this is a good starting place for those whose imagination is captured by this now less mysterious ancient Jewish group!Notes1James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022), 167.2Jodi Magness’ excellent book The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls,2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021) traces several similarities between the archaeology of the site and the historical accounts including the toilet habits, nature of the pottery, and the nature of the site summarized here.3James C. VanderKam has a helpful concise discussion of this topic in Early Judaism, 166–167.4Magness, for example, discusses many of these similarities in The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed.5See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 79–81 for this evidence and conclusion.6See Emmanuel Tov’s statistics in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis, Fortress, 2011), 95.
The Most Objective Textual Critic You’ll Ever Meet The evidence from stone and papyrus promises a better way to determine difficult elements of the Bible’s original text. Benjamin KantorFor many of us, spelling was not our favorite subject in grade school. Getting up in front of class for the annual “spelling bee” filled us with dread. And yet, not all cultures and languages have “spelling bees” like English does. For many languages, in which the alphabet or script is essentially phonetic, a “spelling bee” would be quite boring. The reason it works in English is because the history of sound changes in the language has made correct spelling such a difficult thing to learn. In many ways, we can attribute the idea of “correct” spelling—at least as we moderns see it—to Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1436. Before this monumental invention, and certainly in ancient times, spelling was much less standardized. While certain schools might teach spelling a certain way and general trends might develop, there was no standard or universal spelling for written documents across a region. Different scribes and authors often spelled the exact same words differently. The value of spelling In fact, the way that ancient scribes spelled words can provide a valuable window into the nature and quality of their work. I encountered this again and again as I worked through inscriptions and papyri while writing a book on the historical pronunciation and spelling of Judeo-Palestinian Greek coming out later this year. For the book, I analyzed and documented the spelling of every single word in roughly 4,500 inscriptions and papyri from the time of the New Testament, the centuries leading up to its composition, and the centuries following its completion. The research has yielded thousands upon thousands of various spelling interchanges in the ancient material. Dr. Kantor’s forthcoming book Why are variant spellings important? Aren’t they just mistakes? In some cases, a variant spelling can reflect something about how an ancient scribe was pronouncing a word, just like someone learning to write English might spell the word tough as t-u-f-f. Even though the spelling t-u-f-f is a kind of mistake, it also provides us helpful information about pronunciation. In other cases, certain spelling conventions can tell us something about the time or location of a scribe’s training the same way that the spelling colour points to an author who learned to write in British schools but color to an author who learned to write in the U.S. Indeed, in addition to providing us with a fairly clear idea of how Koine Greek was pronounced at the time of the New Testament, this research has also yielded a wealth of statistics regarding how different ancient scribes spelled words. In the roughly 4,500 inscriptions and papyri, every “correct” (i.e., standard) and “incorrect” (i.e., variant) spelling is documented and tabulated according to text, date, region, genre, and demographic of author. By looking at all these data together, we can draw conclusions about the pronunciation and spelling practices associated with scribes of particular times, regions, and genres. The most objective textual critic While all these data points are important, perhaps the most significant of them all for textual criticism concerns the date and chronology of certain spelling patterns attested in inscriptions written on stone, etc. (epigraphy) and in texts written on papyrus (papyri). After all, none of the extant fragments or manuscripts of the New Testament are from the first century AD. Nevertheless, we would expect the original readings of the New Testament to match scribal practices current in the first century AD. What we do have in abundance from the first century AD are Greek inscriptions and papyri unrelated to the New Testament. If New Testament textual criticism is ultimately about establishing the original text at the time of its composition, then it would be of great help to know what sort of spelling conventions were current among scribes writing inscriptions and papyri at the same time the New Testament was written. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: With all this information at our fingertips, we can eradicate some subjectivity from the work of textual criticism. Instead of making our best judgments regarding the “more difficult reading” (lectio difficilior), trying to determine which wording in a particular passage might be theologically motivated, or merely counting witnesses, we can use epigraphic and papyrological spelling as a sort of measuring stick to determine which witnesses best reflect the scribal conventions of the first century. Spelling conventions don’t get distorted through a modern lens. Spelling conventions aren’t (typically) motivated by theological or exegetical harmonization. In fact, the evidence shows that when copying biblical manuscripts, scribes tend to regularly update spelling conventions to match contemporary practice, even if it differs from that of the manuscript they are copying. This is why, with the right data at hand, epigraphic/papyrological spelling can become what I like to call the most objective textual critic you’ll ever meet. In the remainder of this article, we will look at a couple of examples where a comparison with ancient spelling conventions attested in contemporary epigraphy and papyri can help clarify some text-critical issues. The name “John” in P45 (3rd c.). CBL BP I, fol. 16r. Spelling John’s name In critical editions of the New Testament, you will find the name “John” spelled with two nus (i.e., νν) as ἰωάννης. This is probably because most early witnesses have the name spelled with two nus. There is, however, considerable variation in the witnesses. Here are just some examples: ἰωάννηςἰωάνηςP66(2nd/3rd c. AD)ϊωαννης (John 1:6)ϊω[α]ννης (John 10:41)P4(3rd c. AD)ϊωαννης (Luke 3:16)ιωανου (Luke 3:15)[ιω]ανου (Luke 5:33)ϊωανην (Luke 6:14)P45(3rd c. AD)[ιω]αννην (Luke 9:28)ιωαννης (Luke 9:49)ϊωαννης (John 10:40)P75(3rd c. AD)ϊωανει (Luke 7:18)ϊωανης (Luke 7:20)ϊωανης (John 1:6)P106(3rd c. AD)ιωαννου (John 1:42)Codex Vaticanus(4th c. AD)ϊωαννης (Luke 1:60)ϊωαννης (Acts 4:6)ϊωανης (Matt. 3:4)ϊωανης (Mark 1:4)ϊωανης (Luke 3:16)ϊωανης (John 1:15)ϊωανης (Acts 1:5)Codex Sinaiticus(4th c. AD)ϊωαννης (Matt. 3:4)ϊωαννης (Mark 1:4)ϊωαννης (Luke 3:16)ϊωαννης (John 1:15)ϊωαννης (Acts 1:5)Codex Washingtonianus(4th/5th c. AD)ϊωαννης (Matt. 3:1)ϊωαννης (Luke 1:60)ϊωαννης (John 1:6)Spelling of the name “John” in 2nd–5th c. manuscripts It should also be added that the form ιωαννης is much more common in witnesses of a later date, which are not included here. It would seem, then, that most critical editions opt for the form with two nus (ιωαννης) based on the frequency of its attestation and distribution across early witnesses. Nevertheless, there is seemingly enough evidence for one to make an argument for either of the forms. The manuscripts aren’t sufficient to decide with confidence. If we take a look at the attestations of this name in the ancient epigraphic and papyrological record, however, the picture becomes much clearer. As can be seen from the chart below, spellings with a single ν are far more common in the first and second centuries, whereas spellings with a double νν are far more common from the third century AD and later: 1st c. BC/AD2nd c. AD3rd c. AD or laterιωανης7 (100%)20 (95%)23 (13%)ιωαννης0 (0%)1 (5%)149 (87%)Spelling of “John” in the epigraphical and papyrological record These statistics by themselves may be sufficient to give preference to the spelling ιωανης for the original text of the New Testament, at least in some of its occurrences. The reason why we have two different forms, however, requires further explanation. Although there isn’t space to deal with the topic in depth here,1See §7.9.3.1.X in The Pronunciation of New Testament Greek for the full linguistic discussion. we may outline the basic conclusions. RelatedAppreciating the Diverse Evidence from the Dead Sea ScrollsAnthony FergusonPart 3: The Servant’s Burial according to the ScripturesPeter J. Gentry The name ιωανης with a single nu probably goes back to the Hebrew name יוחנן yōḥānān, whereas the name ιωαννης with a double nu may reflect something more closely related to the Aramaic name יוחנה yōḥannā. It would make sense, then, that the more “Hebrew” name is reflected in earlier texts, when Hebrew was still a spoken language, and the more “Aramaic” name is reflected in later texts, when Aramaic had completely displaced Hebrew as the vernacular. However we explain the different forms, this example shows just how helpful the spelling conventions of contemporary inscriptions and papyri can be in sorting through text-critical issues in the New Testament. And this is not the only place where these datasets can help us. The quest for “Roman” scribes In my work on historical Koine Greek pronunciation and spelling, I found myself encountering the same chronological trend over and over. When the ruling, political administration in a region changes, the spelling practices of the scribes working in that region also change. To give a far-fetched illustration, imagine if Britain took over the U.S. tomorrow and we all started altering our spelling of words like realize to realise, color to colour, etc. This is the sort of thing that happened in the ancient world with Greek scribes. Because of this phenomenon, there are a number of spelling conventions that are particularly characteristic of scribes under Roman rule (roughly 1st–3rd c. AD) as opposed to Byzantine rule (roughly 4th—7th c. AD). In addition to the ιωανης vs. ιωαννης distinction noted above, I list two other characteristically “Roman” vs. “Byzantine” features below: SpellingRomanByzantineName “John”written with ν:ιωανης (Ioanes)written with νν:ιωαννης (Ioannes)Long ῑ vowelswritten with ει:κρεινω “I judge”written with ι:κρινω “I judge”συν- + words starting with πwritten without assimilation:συνπαθεῖν “to sympathize”written with assimilation:συμπαθεῖν “to sympathize” Because it was composed during the Roman period, we would expect the original spelling of the New Testament to reflect more characteristically “Roman” scribal conventions as opposed to “Byzantine” scribal conventions. Even though scribes tend to update spelling conventions in accordance with contemporary practices (see this article), some scribes may have reproduced the spelling of the manuscript they were copying more precisely. As such, the overall prevalence of “Roman” (as opposed to “Byzantine”) scribal conventions in a New Testament witness should perhaps contribute to our overall confidence in the reliability of the manuscript tradition. And this from a relatively objective set of data. On this point, it is noteworthy that a manuscript witness like Codex Vaticanus exhibits a high proportion of all three of these characteristically “Roman” scribal conventions. It has ιωανης as opposed to ιωαννης roughly 90 percent of the time (in the New Testament). It also frequently exhibits both ει for long ῑ vowels and unassimilated συνπ- forms: e.g., κρεινω “I judge” (John 5:30); συνπαθησαι “to sympathize” (Heb. 4:15). And we are able to ascertain this characteristically “Roman” character of the scribe without any appeals to particular phraseology, omissions/additions, or anything else that requires a subjective judgment. The relative distribution of certain spelling patterns is an objective statistic. It either correlates well with those spelling conventions of the Roman period or it does not. The relative distribution of certain spelling patterns is an objective statistic. Future of the field These examples show why I call epigraphic and papyrological spelling “the most objective textual critic you’ll ever meet.” Giving careful attention to the scribal conventions of contemporary epigraphy and papyri should become more and more a part of the work of the textual critic as time goes on. It is telling of just how long the field has minimized the importance of spelling that The Tyndale House Greek New Testament was perhaps the first critical edition of the Greek New Testament to give careful attention to reproducing the spelling conventions used in the manuscript witnesses themselves. This is a major step forward in this regard. Many other critical editions just generalize the “standard” spelling even if the manuscripts have a variant or “non-standard” spelling. And yet, even in The Tyndale House Greek New Testament, we still have ἰωάννης instead of ἰωάνης.Notes1See §7.9.3.1.X in The Pronunciation of New Testament Greek for the full linguistic discussion.