No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Wyman Fragment: A New Edition and Analysis with Radiocarbon Dating
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 September 2022
Abstract
The Wyman Fragment, or 0220, has been a chief and early witness to the text of Romans 4.23–5.3 since the initial publication of the recto in 1952. A 2005 edition of the verso, containing Rom 5.8–13, rendered most of that portion of the manuscript legible for the first time, but has not been widely circulated. In this article I present a new edition and analysis of 0220, a third- or fourth-century manuscript of Rom 4.23–5.13, in light of multispectral imaging and radiocarbon testing performed on the fragment. This edition resolves tensions between previous editions, contextualises the radiocarbon and palaeographic dates, transcribes previously illegible traces, securing additional lines of text, and reveals more work by a second hand than previously noted.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 Hatch, W., ‘A Recently Discovered Fragment of the Epistle to the Romans’, HTR 45 (1952) 81–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Novum Testamentum Graece (27th revised edition; ed. B. and K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini and B. M. Metzger (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993) 14*–16*.
3 Novum Testamentum Graece (28th revised edition; ed. B. and K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini and B. M. Metzger (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012) 63*.
4 D. Limongi, ‘NT, Epistula ad Romanos 4.23–5.3; 5.8–13 (MS 113)’, Papyri Graecae Schøyen (P Schøyen i) (ed. R. Pintaudi; Papyrologica Florentina xxxv; Florence: Edizioni Gonnelli, 2005) 65–8, at 65. Hatch (‘Recently Discovered’, 82) has the more precise 15 × 12.7 cm.
5 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 81, 83–5. He attempted reading it with a UV lamp in addition to normal lighting.
6 Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 65.
7 Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 65–8. It is unfortunate that this edition is not better known and circulated. (Per correspondence with the publisher, only 300 copies were made.) Except at a few points where Limongi could not make out letters or other markings, the majority of my edition of the verso confirms her reading, and through analysis of multi-spectral imaging makes several doubtful letters certain.
8 Radiocarbon analysis was conducted by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at the Prairie Research Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In February of 2014, pursuant to a radiocarbon dating project sponsored by the Green Scholars Initiative under the leadership of Jerry Pattengale, a curator removed two small sections of unmarked parchment from the top side of the manuscript, weighing a total of roughly 3 mg. This sample was sent to the ISGS Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory to undergo analysis through Accelerator Mass Spectrometry.
9 The MSI was conducted by the Early Manuscripts Electronic Library (EMEL), who first consulted with representatives of the Green Collection and the Museum in 2014.
10 D. P. McAllester, ‘Leland C. Wyman: A Biography and Bibliography’, Navajo Religion and Culture: Selected Views, Papers in Honor of Leland C. Wyman (ed. D. M. Brugge and C. J. Frisbie; Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Press, 1982) 1–20.
11 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 81.
12 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 81.
13 Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 65.
14 ‘The History of Script: Sixty Important Manuscript Leaves from the Schøyen Collection’, Sotheby's L12242, 10 July 2012, available at: www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/the-history-of-script-sixty-important-manuscript-leaves-from-the-schyen-collection/lot.3.html?locale=en.
15 Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 65.
16 ‘History’, 1.
17 See Figs. 3 and 4.
18 The processed images from the 2017 MSI round served as the basis for the transcription in this article.
19 E.g. Keenan, D., ‘Why Early-Historical Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean Are Too Early’, Radiocarbon 44 (2002) 225–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Manning, S. W., Griggs, C., Lorentzen, B., Ramsey, C. Bronk, Chivall, D., Jull, A. J. T. and Lange, T. E., ‘Fluctuating Radiocarbon Offsets Observed in the Southern Levant and Implications for Archaeological Chronology Debates’, PNAS 115.24 (2018) 6141–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Manning, S. W., Kromer, B., Cremaschi, M., Dee, M. W., Friedrich, R., Griggs, C. and Hadden, C. S., ‘Mediterranean Radiocarbon Offsets and Calendar Dates for Prehistory’, Science Advances 6.12 (2020)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz1096, accessed 9/29/2021.
20 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 84.
21 ‘iii?’ (E. G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010, Reprint of University of Pennsylvania Press (1977)) 160; cf. 94 (where it is simply assigned to the third century), 101). Turner refers to this manuscript as ‘NT parchment 82’.
22 Orsini, P. and Clarysse, W., ‘Early New Testament Manuscripts and their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography’, ETL 88 (2012) 443–74Google Scholar, at 465–6.
23 Aland, K., Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967) 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 van Haelst, J., Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1976) 178Google Scholar.
25 Comfort, P. W. and Barrett, D. P., eds., The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999) 646–7Google Scholar.
26 Comfort, P. W. and Barrett, D. P., eds., The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts: A Corrected, Enlarged Edition of The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001) 696Google Scholar.
27 Jaroš, K., ed., Das Neue Testament nach den altesten griechischen Handschriften: Die handschriftliche Uberlieferung des Neuen Testaments vor Codex Sinaiticus und Codex Vaticanus (Ruhpoldin/Mainz: Franz Philipp/Rutzen/Vienna/Wurzburg: Echter, 2006) 4081Google Scholar.
28 The terminology is somewhat misleading in two ways. First, ‘Present’ is defined as 1 January 1950, for various reasons. Second, even when that date is used, one cannot simply subtract the years BP from 1950 and get accurate calendar dates. Because the ratio of 14C to 12C has not remained constant, calibration curves are necessary to determine the actual calendar date. For more, see E. M. Scott and P. J. Reimer, ‘Calibration Introduction’, Radiocarbon 51 (2009) 283–5. For a similar recent comparison of radiocarbon and palaeographic dates, with an explanation of how radiocarbon dates work, cf. H. Lundhaug, ‘The Date of MS 193 in the Schøyen Collection: New Radiocarbon Evidence’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 57 (2020) 219–234.
30 For the probability percentages, note that it is a 68.3% chance that it falls between 236 and 252 ce or 290 and 320 ce. The smaller percentages given after those individual date ranges are the percentage likelihood that the date falls within that smaller range. Similarly for the percentages given in the next sentence.
31 As an example of how newer scientific data can revise radiocarbon dating, under the previous calibration curve, INTCAL13, there was a 68.3% probability that the manuscript was dated between 172 and 193 ce (10.4%), 210 and 256 ce (44.7%) or 298 and 319 ce (13.2%), and a 95.4% probability that it was dated between 135 and 260 ce (75.2%) or 280 and 324 ce (20.3%).
32 Cf. B. Nongbri, ‘The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer ii (P66)’, MH 71 (2014) 1–35.
33 Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 66.
34 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 84.
35 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 85 n .6; Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 68 n. 12.
36 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 85 n .6; Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 68 n. 12.
37 In l. 6 the scribe used the ϗ symbol for the syllable και in δικαιωθɛντɛς, and in both ll. 9 and 10 he used a supralinear stroke to signify a word-terminal nu.
38 Of course, with so much of the variant in the lacuna, it is impossible to be certain that it was recognised as an error, either by the scribe or a subsequent corrector. As noted in the transcription below, there is a possibility that it was marked, but this is not certain. There is one clear example of correction in l. 14, where θλɛιψις is orthographically corrected to θλιψις by ‘manu eiusdem aetatis cum scriba’ (Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 85). At this point, there is a dot signifying deletion above and slightly to the right of the vertical bar of the epsilon. This seems to resemble the placement of the dot between the omicron and iota in l. 12 of the recto. Whether these were placed by the scribe himself or a later corrector cannot be determined.
39 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 82.
40 Namely X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF), Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy. For more on the scientific analysis of ink composition, see I. Rabin, ‘Material Studies of Historic Inks: Transition from Carbon to Iron-Gall Inks’, Traces of Ink: Experiences of Philology and Replication (Nuncius 7; Leiden: Brill, 2021) 70–8. For evidence of such non-carbon black inks starting in Hellenistic Egypt, see G. Nehring, O. Bonnerot, M. Gerhardt, M. Krutzsch and I. Rabin, ‘Looking for the Missing Link in the Evolution of Black Inks’, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 13 (2021), article 71. The rise of such metal inks, though not necessarily their creation, corresponded with the rise of parchment as a writing material as metal inks adhere better to parchment than does carbon black (V. Damiani, ‘Ink in Herculaneum: A Survey of Recent Perspectives’, Traces of Ink (Leiden: Brill, 2021) 57–69, at 59).
41 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 85.
42 There is no way of knowing when the correction marks were added, but the use of a different ink possibly suggests a different location than the initial copying. It is worth noting that carbon black ink is much more common than plant or metal ink during the relevant time period.
43 Of course, since many conjunctions in Greek are postpositive, they do not immediately follow the high dot (e.g. the dots in recto l. 6 and verso l. 13).
44 As noted by Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 67, but not Hatch.
45 E. G. Turner, Typology, 77. If there were a page number here, it would have to have been in the upper right, where there is currently a large tear in the manuscript.
46 That is, it is unlikely that a manuscript such as 0220 would have begun at Rom 4.23.
47 Very rough math was done here. In the catalogue in Codex Claromontanus, Acts is described as 2600 stichoi, which in pages of twenty-four lines, as we find in 0220, would occupy 109 pages.
48 While there is evidence that the Marcionite Apostolos had Galatians and the Corinthian epistles before Romans, even in their full form they would not occupy the required space. (Cf. U. Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos (Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012) 284–308). It is also unlikely that this manuscript represents a Marcionite collection.
49 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. xi (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915) 5–6. Orsini and Clarysse date it to 350–400 (‘Early’, 472).
50 Grenfell and Hunt read σκ̣θ 229, but the first numeral is an omega, rendering 829 (or, if the middle numeral is an iota, 819) (Oxyrhynchus, 5). The number is correctly read by D. Barker, ‘How Long and Old Is the Codex of Which P.Oxy. 1353 is a Leaf?’, Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon (ed. C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias; LSTS 70; London: T&T Clark, 2009) 192–202, at 197. Barker estimates that the codex could have held a bit more than the entire Pauline corpus and the beginning of 1 Peter, though for this estimate he assumes the modern ordering of New Testament books.
51 Baker, ‘How Long’, 192.
52 Baker, ‘How Long’, 195.
53 The textual notes in this section are based largely on the NA28, though I have made some reference to Tischendorf's eighth edition.
54 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 83.
55 Hatch, ‘Recently Discovered’, 85.
56 Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 67–8: ‘La ricostruzione e incerta, ma e molto probabile che il ms. riportasse una variante non attesta altrove.’
57 Limongi, ‘Epistula’, 68