TRANSCRIPTION NOTES These notes relate to the transcriptions of primary witnesses that are given on disk. Some of the notes are more significant than others. Even though a large number of them focus on minor features, they are necessary. Had they been omitted, the reader may have been left wondering about particular features of my transcriptions. I apologise for their repetitive nature, but there are only so many ways of saying the same thing. I have edited out some notes that seem unimportant in hindsight. I would be happy to supply the complete versions to anyone who requires them. Points of uncertainty remain at certain places that are identified in the notes. Examination of high definition facsimiles of the manuscripts will help to resolve some of these uncertainties The introduction to each set of transcription notes specifies the source upon which the corresponding transcription is based. General notes on the manuscript, its orthography, correctors, date, and provenance are included as required. Dates are only mentioned on a few occasions. Otherwise, they are understood to be as given in appendix 1 of NA27 or Kurt Aland's Kurzgefasste Liste (1994). Provenance information is derived from printed editions. I believe that my spelling maps provide clues to provenance, but these maps have not influenced the provenances given in these notes. As far as the papyri are concerned, all are assumed to have been copied in Egypt. Any one of these transcriptions may require revision. Nearly all of them have been verified by letter-for-letter comparison with the sources from which they were transcribed. Unfortunately, I am not completely sure which ones I have neglected to verify. I am fairly certain that the only transcriptions that have not been verified are those of U56, U75, and U142. (I have a sneaking suspicion that I have verified the last one.) The transcriptions of U1, U1s, U75, and U75s definitely need their corrector tags revised. This is because my initial strategy was to treat scribes who had copied supplementary sections as correctors. At the collation stage, I discovered that this strategy created difficulties that could only be overcome by treating the supplementary sections as separate entities. Rather than changing the transcriptions and performing all of the collation and map production again, I have settled for having a missing corrector in the U1 and U75 transcriptions. Anyone who uses these transcriptions should perform the necessary revisions before going any further. A separate bibliography of works that are specific to the transcription in question is provided for manuscripts that have already been edited. The following bibliography contains referenced works of more general scope. References Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger (eds.). 1993. Novum Testamentum Graece. Nestle-Aland, 27th ed. Stuttgart. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger (eds.). 1993. The Greek New Testament. United Bible Societies, 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. Aland, Kurt. 1994. Kurzgefasste Liste der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Aland, Kurt and Barbara. 1989. The text of the New Testament: an introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism. 2nd rev. and enlarged ed. Trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Elliott, J. Keith. 1989. A bibliography of Greek New Testament manuscripts. Society for New Testament Studies monograph series, 62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardthausen, V. 1913. Griechische Palaeographie. Vol. 2. Die Schrift, Unterschriften und Chronologie im Alterum und im Byzantinischen Mittelalter. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Veit. Repr. 1978. Berlin: Nationales Druckhaus. Gignac, Francis Thomas. . Agrammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods. Vol. 1. Phonology. Testi e documenti per lo studio dell'antichità, 55-1. Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino - La Goliardica. (The date is that given in the preface.) Guillemette, Pierre. 1986. The Greek New Testament analysed. Kitchener: Herald Press. Kenyon, Frederic G. 1950. The text of the Greek Bible: a student's handbook. Studies in theology, 38. Rev. ed. London: Gerald Duckworth. Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. 1968. A Greek-English lexicon. Rev. and augmented ed. with a supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Metzger, Bruce M. 1981. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: an introduction to Greek palaeography. New York: Oxford University Press. Metzger, Bruce M. 1992. The text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration. 3rd enlarged ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Ropes, James Hardy. 1926. The beginnings of Christianity. Part 1. The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 3. The text of Acts. Ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. London: Macmillan. Repr. 1979. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Souter, Alexander. 1954. The text and canon of the New Testament. Studies in theology, 25. 2nd ed., rev. C. S. C. Williams. London: Gerald Duckworth. Tischendorf, Konstantin von (ed.). 1872. Novum Testamentum Graece. Vol. 2. 8th major critical ed. Leipzig: Giesecke and Devrient. Repr. 1965. Graz: Akademischen Druck. Wachtel, Klaus and Klaus Witte. 1994. Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus. Vol. 2. Die Paulinischen Briefe. Part 2. Gal, Eph, Phil, Kol, 1 u. 2 Thess, 1 u. 2 Tim, Tit, Phlm, Hebr. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung, 22. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. P12
P. Amherst 3b. New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, pap. Gr. 3. Transcribed and verified by reference to a facsimile in Grenfell and Hunt (1901, plate 25). P12 is a late third or early fourth century copy of part of the first verse of Hebrews. It written in the top margin of a letter from Rome to 'inhabitants of the Arsinoite nome', which was probably written between 250 and 285 CE (Grenfell and Hunt, 1900, 28 and 30). POL[di]U[/di]MERWS:
The diaeresis consists of a single point above the upsilon. LALH[ut]S[/ut][rt]AS TOIS[/rt]:
According to the transcriptions of both Grenfell and Hunt (1900, 31) and Schofield (1936, 154), the final sigma of LALHSAS is legible.
Grenfell and Hunt (1900, 31) and Schofield (1936, 154) regard the eta and mu as legible. Remnants of what appear to be two letters exist before a lacuna which could accommodate one or two letters. Whereas it is possible that these remnants are from an eta followed by a mu, I have transcribed them as reconstructed text due to their high degree of uncertainty. Another remnant, which may be from a nu, survives after the lacuna. PR[ut]O[/ut][rt]F[/rt][ut]HTA[/ut][rt]I[/rt][ut]S[/ut]:
Even though I can see the cross stroke of a tau, the top of an alpha and part of the final sigma, I can see none of the eta. References Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt (eds.). 1900. The Amherst papyri: being an account of the Greek papyri in the collection of the Right Hon. Lord Amherst of Hackney, F.S.A. at Didlington Hall, Norfolk. Part 1. The ascension of Isaiah, and other theological fragments. London: Oxford University Press. Repr. 1975. Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino - La Goliardica. Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt (eds.). 1901. The Amherst papyri: being an account of the Greek papyri in the collection of the Right Hon. Lord Amherst of Hackney, F.S.A. at Didlington Hall, Norfolk. Part 2. Classical fragments and documents of the Ptolemaic Roman and Byzantine periods. London: Oxford University Press. Repr. 1975. Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino - La Goliardica. Schofield, E. M. 1936. 'The papyrus fragments of the Greek New Testament'. Dissertation (PhD). Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. P13
P. Oxy. 657. London, British Library, inv. 1532v; Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, PSI 1292. Transcribed and verified by reference to the manuscript itself for those parts held in the British Library. This part of the transcription has also been compared with the transcriptions of Grenfell and Hunt (1904) and Schofield (1936). The fragment designated PSI 1292 has been transcribed from Bartoletti and Norsa (1951) and compared with photographs held at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster. A fresh examination of the fragment designated PSI 1292 is in order. A number of letters from the right-hand edge of column XA are visible but are not included in Bartoletti and Norsa's edition.
This manuscript is unusual because it is part of a roll instead of a codex. The biblical text is written on the verso side (papyrus strips running vertically) of a copy of the new epitome of Livy (Grenfell and Hunt, 1904, 36). Ellipses (…) have been inserted to signify sense pauses where there are unusually large spaces between words. There are nearly always spaces preceding and following nomina sacra. These have not been included unless I regard them as coinciding with pauses in sense. The choice of whether or not a space warrants being marked as a sense-pause is highly subjective. In addition, some spaces may be due to the scribe avoiding faults in the papyrus. As a result, there is often a significant degree of uncertainty connected with my placement of ellipses. Correctors
The page numbering appears to be in a different hand and ink to the rest of the manuscript. The style of lettering for the numbers is similar to that of P46. Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 37) write, 'There is no sign anywhere of a second hand, and such corrections as occur are due to the first hand, who is responsible for occasional lection signs and the punctuation by means of a double point inserted somewhat freely and not always accurately'. Although I hesitate to differ from Grenfell and Hunt, I regard a number of corrections as by a second hand. [d1]CAUCH[rt]MA[/rt][/d1] [c1]KAUCH[rt]MA[/rt][/c1]:
The form of the K is not that of the original hand. The ink is slightly darker and broader.
This alteration was not noticed during transcription. It has been included in deference to Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 46). The manuscript should be consulted to determine which corrector made the change. A[ut]L[/ut][rt]LA PARA[/rt]KALESATE:
In this and the following three lines, Schofield (1936, 162) transcribes some letters which are now missing from the papyrus. ARMATIAS:
Grenfell and Hunt's reconstruction is followed here. They write (1904, 46), 'thn was certainly omitted before katapaºusin'.
Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 40) transcribe this as ªsºab≥batismo". A fragment of the letter following the first alpha remains. It does not appear to be from a beta, but could be from a mu. The reconstructed mu is entirely hypothetical. The mu preceding OS appears to have been retraced.
This alteration was not noticed during transcription. It has been included in view of the following note by Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 46): 's of pesh was converted from t.' The papyrus should be consulted to determine whether the first hand made the change.
Grenfell and Hunt's reconstruction is followed here. They write (1904, 46), 'It is almost certain that the papyrus read eurwmen, since without this word the line would be unaccountably short'.
Grenfell and Hunt's reconstruction is followed again. They write (1904, 46), 'The line is sufficiently long without te after dwra …, and in view of the tendency of the papyrus the omission is probable.'
There appears to sufficient space for a sense pause here. NOS… [di]U[/di]PO TOU [ns][rt]QU[/rt][/ns] [rt]OUTWS KAI O [ns]CS[/ns] OUC EAUTON EDO[/rt]=:
The usual reading, which includes kaqwsper kai Aarwn after upo tou q—u—, appears to be too long for the available space (Grenfell and Hunt, 1904, 46-47) . It is possible that P13 had the same reading as U18 and U151, which include kaqwsper kai Aarwn but omit outw" kai o c–"– (Wachtel and Witte, 1994, 278).
Parts of these verses are preserved on the fragment of the papyrus which is identified as PSI 1292. The fragment includes the right-hand edge of column XA and the first third of column XB. My transcription follows Bartoletti and Norsa's edition of the fragment, except where my examination of a photograph at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research suggested that changes be made.
With statistics obtained from the surviving columns, the following may be expected for column XA. (The expected values correspond to the mean values plus or minus two standard deviations. For a normal distribution, there is a probability of 95% that the actual value will be within the given range.)
Quantity Range Mean
No. of lines 23 - 27 25
Letters per line 32 - 46 39
Total letters 800 - 1150 975 Based on the expected total number of letters, the letter N which survives at the end of the first line of column XA is probably from a word located somewhere within Heb 9.24 to 9.27.
In my reconstruction of this column, the UBS3 text was altered by replacing CRISTOS and QEOS with their nomina sacra abbreviations. In accordance with the scribe's usual practice, OURANON (Heb 9.24) was not contracted. The first THS of 9.26 was omitted due to its bracketed status in NA27. Two changes were made where P46 and U6 agreed, as these have a similar text to P13. OLOKAUTWMATA (Heb 10.6) was replaced with OLOKAUTWMA, and GAR was inserted after GEGRAPTAI (Heb 10.7).
My transcription differs from Bartoletti and Norsa's edition here. The last two letters of this word seem to be visible in the photograph examined at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. [rt]KAI PAS MEN ARC[/rt]=:
The line-length conforms better to adjacent line-lengths if the letters ARC are included.
The breadth, colour, and style of the inserted epsilon are consistent with the first hand. O[ut]U[/ut][rt]DEPO[/rt]TAI… DUN[ut]AN[/ut]TAI:
Two of the letters of DUNANTAI have been given the status of uncertain text. They appeared to be indistinct in the photograph.
There appears to be a trace of the first vertical stroke of the N.
This alteration was not noticed during transcription. According to Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 47), 'The second n, if it be n, in prosenenkas was converted from i or u. The previous n also seems to have been altered.' The manuscript should be consulted in order to confirm the veracity of this transcription and to ascribe the alteration to a particular corrector, if possible. Perhaps the former letter was a gamma?
EKAQISEN… [ut]E[/ut][rt]N DEXIA[/rt]:
The lacuna can accommodate the letters N DEXIA. The photograph shows that what appears to be a blank space after EKAQISEN is followed by a horizontal stroke consistent with an E.
The photograph shows that there is a lacuna where the tau would be expected. THN:
The nu is unambiguous when the two fragments are placed together. [ut]A[/ut]:
There appears to be a deletion stroke through this letter. Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 47) write, 'The scribe apparently began to write autous before epigraysw, but that the a was meant to be deleted is not certain and its partial effacement may be accidental.'
One would expect the reading mh; mnhsqhvsomai here. The manuscript appears to have an iota rather than an eta. If so, there are two possibilities: either mhv has been spelled mi, or it has dropped out and mimnhçqhçomai has been written instead of mnhsqhvsomai. The first option has been adopted here as Gignac (1975, 236) lists miv as a variant spelling of mhv. Judging by the photograph, the theta is quite indistinct and the letter transcribed as an omicron could be an omega.
This alteration was not noticed during transcription. Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 47) write, 'The second e of econtes has been altered from a.'
There may be enough space for a gamma before the kappa. TON:
The tau is unambiguous when both fragments are considered together. TOUTO (second occurrence):
There is a space between TOU and TO.
Grenfell and Hunt's reconstruction is followed here. They write (1904, 47), 'We cannot be sure that the papyrus did not have desmois, but the absence of mou is the important thing and is much in favour of desmiois.'
There may not be a final nu here. [di]U[/di]POMONHS:
The final sigma looks like a nu. P46 has YPOMONHN here.
Schofield (1936, 165) has EXEI whereas Grenfell and Hunt have HXEI (1904, 42). My transcription follows that of Wachtel and Witte (1994). (Dr Maurice Robinson kindly checked this word for me while he was at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research.)
This has been ascribed to the second hand rather than the first hand because the lower left part of the A is rounded and not pointed.
What may have been a kappa has been changed to a nu. (Perhaps the former letter was a gamma?) This nu has been attributed to the second hand as its ink differs from that of the rest of the word. [d1][ut]H[/ut]UH[ut]R[/ut][rt]ESTHKE=[/rt]NAI[/d1] [c1]EUH[ut]R[/ut][rt]ESTHKE=[/rt]NAI[/c1]:
This correction has been ascribed to the second hand because of a very slight difference in the darkness and width of the E compared with the U and H which follow.
Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 48) write, 'It is practically certain that the papyrus did not read eteken after hlikias'.
Some manuscripts have komiçamenoi instead of labonteç. According to Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 48), komiçamenoi fits the space better than labonteç. This line has 45 letters with komiçamenoi or 42 with labonteç. The average line length for the page is 43 letters per line. The preceding line has 45 letters and the following one 40. Going by the average line length of the whole page (43) and the average of the preceding and following lines (42.5), the shorter line with labonteç is slightly more probable.
Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 48) write, 'The papyrus evidently omitted kai peisqontes [after idontes]'.
[d1]DAUID[/d1] [d2][c1]DAU[st]E[/st]ID[/c1][/d2] [c2]DAUID[/c2]:
Although the ink is the same colour, the form of the E is not consistent with the first hand. It appears to have been struck through E with a sloping stroke.
Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 44) and Schofield (1936, 166) print hrgaçanto in the reconstructed part of line 9 of column XZ. This may have been spelled eirgaçanto.
[d1]M[ut]H O[/ut][/d1] [c1]MEN[/c1]:
The last two letters of this word appear to have been corrected. The letter underlying the E may have been an I, H or, G, and the letter underlying the N may have been a R or O. The correction has been ascribed to the second hand because the broad and dark ink strokes of the N differ from the surrounding letters.
According to Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 48), 'agiotaths is a graphical error for agiothtos'.
The letters epsilon and iota have been written over another letter which could be an eta. It is difficult to determine which scribe did this. The form of the epsilon is not consistent with the first hand. The ink of this correction has a similar appearance to the ink of another correction in the same line, AUTOU/AUTHS. Even so, it is possible that the first hand made this correction. The darkness of the ink of the following word, TOIS, is similar to that of the correction as well.
The underlying O is readily discernible; the U is less so. The bent appearance of the second vertical stroke of the H suggests that the underlying letter is an U. The appearance of the ink suggests that this is a later correction, so it has been ascribed to the second hand. Grenfell and Hunt (1904, 48) thought that the H was altered from O or OI.