Review of “Heralds of the Good News” by J. Ross Wagner

Wagner  Review

Timothy J. Christian. Review of J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans, (Boston: Brill, 2003).

INTRODUCTION

In this book review, I will critically evaluate New Testament scholar J. Ross Wagner’s Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. I will begin by summarizing Wagner’s aims, methodology, and central theses in the book. Next, I will analyze it by judging whether or not it lives up to its claims and by discussing both places for improvement and the work’s lasting contribution. Overall, Wagner’s work here on the intertextuality of Romans and Isaiah is an invaluable contribution to the field of New Testament studies.

SUMMARY OF WAGNER

The Aims and Methodology

To begin, Wagner’s main aim is to investigate exegetically Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans, particularly in Rom 9-11 and 15, and specifically regarding his reinterpretation of Isaiah and possible alterations of his Isaianic Vorlage. He attempts to do so by two primary methods, one being intertextual analysis through examining the OT (esp. Isaiah) echoes in Romans, and the other textual criticism through comparative analysis of the Septuagint (LXX), Masoretic Text (MT), Dead Sea Scrolls, and other versions of Isaiah with Paul’s rendition in Romans.

The Central Theses

Throughout Heralds of The Good News, I have traced about eight central theses that Wagner argues. First, he argues that the current “remnant of Israel” guarantees the future restoration of Israel.[1] Secondly, he asserts that Paul’s convictions are threefold: “God’s sovereignty, God’s election of Israel, and God’s fidelity to the covenant.”[2] Thirdly, he contends that Paul consistently interprets the OT christologically and that he adapts or reinterprets Isaiah for his own mission and theological purposes in Romans sometimes regardless of the original context. Another argued thesis is that Paul sees his mission to the Gentiles resulting in the restoration of Israel as prefigured in Isaiah. Next, he sees Isaiah as a fellow herald proclaiming with Paul the good news (gospel) of Israel’s restoration. Moreover, Wagner argues that Paul often conflates other OT texts with Isaiah in Romans, which serve as harmony to the Isaianic melody sounding in Romans. Thus, Isaiah is the prominent soloist and the other texts from Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Hosea are the accompaniment. Lastly, Wagner maintains that Paul uses a Greek Vorlage which is similar to the LXX and has little influence from the Hebrew or Aramaic versions. Overall, Wagner concludes,

[Paul’s] scriptural interpretations serve the ends of the larger argument he is constructing in the letter, an argument that is called forth by a complex set of circumstances and concerns that have arisen in the context of his mission to the Gentiles. And yet, at the same time, the letter to the Romans reveals, perhaps more clearly than any other of Paul’s letters, the deep and pervasive influence that Israel’s scriptures exert on the shape of his thought and on the contours of his apostolic ministry…Paul appropriates Isaianic images in order to depict his ministry of the gospel as the proclamation of Israel’s long-awaited release and restoration.[3]

ANALYSIS OF WAGNER

In my judgment, Wagner most certainly accomplishes his aims in Heralds of the Good News and gives a thorough and detailed analysis of Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans. Furthermore, he interacts with a plethora of other scholars and touches on many of the main interpretive issues in Romans throughout his exegesis of Rom 9-11 and 15. In addition, his argument has both logical consistency and explanatory power. With regard to his method, Wagner executes the intertextual method and textual criticism with such obvious expertise and experience, and has done a stupendous job setting the standard for intertextual studies in Romans and the NT in general. Furthermore, since his whole study relies upon working with the primary text, he tends to remain faithful to the primary materials of Romans, Isaiah, and other OT texts.

Room for Improvement

There is, however, one main change that Wagner could make to improve his volume even more. While he does a fantastic job at setting out the data concerning Paul’s use of Isaiah and other OT texts in Rom 9-11 and 15, he is nevertheless quite sparse in providing the implications of that data. Most chapters end leaving one asking, “So what?” Even though the final chapter is set aside to display the full implications of the study, Wagner could still have given more to the reader at the end of each chapter.[4] Even though this is for a scholarly audience which will be patient enough to read through until the end, it would be far better to give some “pay off” to the throughout.

The Lasting Contributions of “Heralds of the Good News”

Despite this, Heralds of the Good News has made several important and lasting contributions to NT studies. First, it is a definitive work on Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans. I am not aware of any other work that attempts such a feat, let alone executes it so well. Secondly, it is a definitive work on intertextual studies and OT echoes in the NT, and advances the body of knowledge as a superb example of how to do intertextuality. In addition, Wagner’s charts and tables comparing and contrasting the several witnesses to the quoted OT texts are indispensable for reference. Finally, this work is both an entry point and cistern for those who desire to understand better Paul’s use of, interpretation of, and adaption of OT Scripture. All in all, Heralds of the Good News is an excellent contribution to the field of biblical studies and I highly recommend it.

You can buy it on amazon for an arm and a leg (about $75): http://www.amazon.com/Heralds-Good-News-Isaiah-Concert/dp/0391042041/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1397321103&sr=8-2&keywords=j+ross+wagner


[1] Wagner says, “Paul joins Isaiah in insisting that the existence of a remnant of Israel in the present time vouchsafes the future redemption of ‘all Israel’” (41).

[2] Wagner 357.

[3] Wagner 356-57.

[4] That is not to say that he gives no implications, because he certainly does, but rather 300+ pages of detailed intertextual and text critical work with little momentary payoff  is quite difficult to trudge through. My point: he does not need to save the climax of implications for the end. It would benefit his work to add more inferences of the data in the chapters proper.

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 6)

This is Part 6 of a 6 Part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. Here is Part 1Part 2Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library andThe Chester Beatty Library.

APPENDIX TWO

            Here are my notes for tracking P46 throughout all the most important variants in 2 Corinthians. First, I state whether it is the NU text or not. Second, I make a note about what type of textual variant it is. Thirdly, I note the strength of the external evidence which supports P46.

2 Corinthians 1 – 18 total variants + 1 for the Title

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
Title/v.1 531 P46, B, and 01 have “To the Corinthians B.” With the best and oldest MSS.
6b-7a B A + 531-2 NU. Keeps original Word Order. P46 actually omits many words in this phrase (Comfort). Strong external support.
10a D B 1 532 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Weak external evidence.
10b C B 2 532 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
10c C C 3 Not NU. Change of Word Order. This is a messy variant. All over the place. P46 agrees with B, D, 1739, 1881, and Didache against the NU text. NU has better external support.
11 C B 2 533 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Fairly good external support.
12a D B 1 534 Not NU. Word Substitution. P46 along with 01, A, B, C, K, P, 044, 33, 1739, 1881, Old Latin r, Coptic, Clement, Origen, and Didache side against the NU text having “holiness.” The NU is supported by a Byzantine text type. Better external than NU.
12b 2 NU. Does not Omit Word. Strong external support.
13 2 534 Not NU. Omission of Phrase. P46 and B are strong externally.
14 C C + Not NU. Omission of Word. Fairly good external support.
15a 1 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
15b C B 2 534 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
16a 1 535 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
16b 2 Not NU. Word Substitution. Weak external support.
17 3 535 Not NU. Change of Word Order. Two Word Omissions of 2nd nai and 2nd ou. Weak externally.
18 1 Not NU. Word Omission. Weak external support. Singular reading with D.
19 + 535 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
20 1 Not NU. Change of Word Order. Weak external evidence.
22 + NU. Does not Omit Word. Strong external evidence.

 

2 Corinthians 2 – 5 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 C C + 535 NU. Word Substitution. P46 keeps the original wording. Good external evidence but variant has better.
3a 2 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
7 C + NU. Keeps original Word Order. Best external support.
9 B A 2 Not NU. Word Omission. Little external support.
17 C B + 535 Not NU. Word Substitution. Weak external support.

 

2 Corinthians 3 – 9 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 1 NU. Word Substitution. Hearing error.  Strong external and internal support.
2 C A + 536-37 NU. Does not change Grammar/Inflection. Strong external evidence.
3a A 1 Not NU. Addition. P46 inserts “kai” along with B, 1739, 1881, f, Vulgate.  Strong external evidence with P46 and B aligning.
3b 2 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external evidence.
5a 2 Not NU. Omission of Word. P46 and B are the singular reading, which is strong.
5b 3 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong externally.
6 + 537 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. The original hand of P46 has the variant but the first corrector is with the NU. Split externally.
9 C B 1 537 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
13 + Missing in P46.
18 + Not NU. Omission of Word. P46 agrees with Vulgate and Speculum. Little external support.

 

2 Corinthians 4 – 12 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 538 NU. Keeps original grammar/inflections. Strong external evidence.
4 1 NU. Keeps original grammar/inflections. Shorter reading. Doesn’t add prefix to verb as other variants do. Strong external evidence.
5a 1 538 NU. Keeps original word order. Strong external evidence.
5b C B 2 538 Not NU. Changes original grammar/inflections. External evidence is all over the place.
6a 5 538-39 Not NU. Word Substitution. Substitutes “of God” for a pronoun.  Weak external evidence.
6b 6 539 NU. Original Word Order. Strongest external evidence, although it is split.
10 + NU. Keeps Original Grammar/Inflection.  Strong external evidence.
11 + Not NU. Word Substitution. Changes original word. Misspelling. Possible hearing error. Weak external evidence.
13 + NU. Does not insert/add. Strong external support.
14a C B 1 539-40 Not NU. Word Omission. Split strength of external evidence.
14b + 540 NU. Keeps Original Word. Strong external evidence.
16 1 540 NU. Keeps Original Grammar/Inflection.  See 4:1 for similarity. Strong external evidence.

 

2 Corinthians 5 – 10 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
3a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection or change of Word. Western reading.
3b C 2 540 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Strongest external evidence is with p46.
8 + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Variant has weak external evidence.
10a 2 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Week external evidence.
10b 3 Not NU. Word Substitution. Is a Western reading. But the NU external evidence is not strong.
11 + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Changes indicative to subjunctive mood.
12 2 541 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection or Word. “Our” to “Your.” Some other strong MSS align with p46.
17 B A + 541-42 NU. Keeps original wording and does not Add “all things.” Variant has weak support, while NU has very strong external evidence.
19 1+2 542 Not NU. Word Substitution. This is a mess. P46 has singular reading. NU has strong external support.
20 1 Not NU. Omission of Word. This is a mess. NU has very strong external support against P46.

 

2 Corinthians 6 – 8 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Western Reading. NU has strong external support.
4 + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strongest external support.
9 + 542 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external evidence.
11 + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. “Our” instead of “your.” Strong external evidence.
15a 1 542 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
15b 2 542 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
15c 3 542 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
16 C B 1 542-43 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Good external support, although the NU is just as good.

 

2 Corinthians 7 – 12 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 1+2 543 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. P46 has singular reading. Everything is against it.
5a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. P46 and B align which is strong externally.
5b 2 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Weak external evidence.
8a 2 543 NU. Does not Add. Only B adds “but.”
8b D C 3 543-44 Not NU. Word Omission. Omits “for, because.” There is a correction of P46 here. The original has “I see” and the corrector changes it to “seeing.” This is a gram/inflection change within itself.
10 + 544 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Externally, evidence is split equally.
11a 2 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.
11b 3 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Weak and little external support.
12a 1 544 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.
12b 2 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Witnesses split but best support NU including P46.
13 + Not NU. Omission of Word. P46 only has support of minuscules.
14 3 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Fairly good external support. Probably the best.

 

2 Corinthians 8 – 10 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
2a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Very little external support.
2b 2 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split external, but NU and P46 are stronger.
5 + 545 Not NU. Word Substitution. Very little external support, only a few versions.
7 D C + 545-46 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split externally. NU has P46 and B together which is strong support.
14 + Not NU. Omission of Word. Few miniscule support (1739, 1881).
16 + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split externally.
18 + NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
19a D 1 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Strong external support.
19b C 2 546 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection and does not Omit. However, P46 and 33 do not have this word because of homoeoteleuton and text critics assume that it would’ve been there. Strong external support.
21 2 546 Not NU. Word Substitution. Only has support of lat, sy, and Ambst which is typical when P46 is a singular reading.

 

2 Corinthians 9 – 8 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading with Old Latin g in agreement.
4 C B 1 546-47 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split external.
5a 1 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Stronger evidence for NU than variant.
5b 2 Not NU. Omission of Word. Little external support.
10 1 547 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Western reading with P46, B, D, F, and G is agreement.
11 1 Not NU. Word Substitution. Hearing error. Little external support.
12 B + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Little external support.
14 + 547-48 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong support for NU.

 

2 Corinthians 10 – 6 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
7b 4 548 Not NU. Addition and Changes Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading.
8a 1 Not NU. Omission of Word. Strong external evidence though.
8b 2 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading while there are several variants.
10a 1 NU. Original Word Order. Little yet strong external support.
10b 2 Not NU. Omission of Word. Little external support.
12/13 C B 1+2 548-49 NU. Does not Omit Phrase. Strong external support for NU.

 

2 Corinthians 11 – 8 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
3 C C 4 549-50 NU. Does not Omit Phrase “the Christ.” Strong external evidence, especially with P46 and B.
4 + 550 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split externally, but NU is stronger because P46 and B are together.
6a 1 Not NU. Omission of Phrase. Singular reading. This effects 6b variant.
6b 2 Not NU. Omission of Word. Omits because P46 omits the phrase it is in.
18 + NU. Does not Add. Split externally but NU has better support.
21 B + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support; variant is Western.
23 + NU. Keeps original Word Order. Many variants. NU has best external support.
28 1 550 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Very strong external support.
30 1 Not NU. Omission of Word. Agrees only with B. While strong, it’s not enough to overturn.
32 C B 1 Missing from P46.

 

2 Corinthians 12 – 22 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1a C A 2 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution based on a hearing error. Strong externally.
1b C A 3 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection and Wording. Strong external support.
1c 4 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Best external evidence.
3 1 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Little external support (P46 B D*). Variant has better external support.
5a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Little external support.
5b 2 NU. Does not Add. Split externally.
6a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading.
6b 2 NU. Does not Omit Word. Split externally.
7a D C 1 550-51 Not NU. Omission of Word. NU has better external support.
7b C B 3 551-52 NU. Does not Omit Phrase. NU has better external support.
9 A 3 Missing in P46.
10 C 1 Not NU. Change of Word. Word Substitution. Only 01 agrees with P46.
11a 1 551-52 NU. Does not Add. Very strong external support.
11b 2 Not NU. Adds a Word. Singular reading with only B in agreement.
12 1 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
15a B B 1 NU. Does not Add. Addition. One variant adds and another omits. Strong external support.
15b C C 2 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
16 + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Only D* agrees with P46.
19a A 1 552 Not NU. Addition. Singular reading.
19b 3 Not NU. Omission of Phrase. Very little external support.
20a 1 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Best external support. Variant is Western.
20b 2 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
21 1 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.

 

2 Corinthians 13 – 10 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
2a 1 552 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.
2b 2 Not NU. Omission of Phrase. Singular reading with F and G in support.
4a 1 552 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.
4b B A 2 552 Missing in P46.
4c A 3 552-53 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading.
4d 4 Not NU. Word Substitution. Weak external support.
4e 5 NU. Does not omit phrase. Strong external support.
5a 1 553 Missing in P46.
5b 2 NU. Does not Add. Variant has better external support, but NU has P46 and B together.
13a 1 554 NU. Does not Omit Word. Variant has little external support.
13b 2 554 Not NU. Omission of Word. Singular reading.
13c 3 554 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.

 

Total of 139 variants of 2 Corinthians observed in this study.

Total of 80 (all) singular readings of P46’s 2 Corinthians in this study.

Grand Total of 219 variants observed of the P46 text in 2 Corinthians in this study.

 

Approximate total variants of Kenyon: 326

Approximate total singular readings of Kenyon: 87

Grand Total of 413 approximate variants observed of the P46 text in 2 Corinthians.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comfort, Philip. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2008.

Comfort, Philip Wesley and David P. Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2001.

Duff, Jeremy. “P46 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?” NTS 44 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998), 578-590.

Eshbaugh, Howard. “Textual Variants and Theology: A Study of the Galatians Text of Papyrus 46” JSNT 3 (1979): 60-72.

Hull, Robert. The Story of the New Testament Text. Atlanta: SBL, 2010.

Holmes, Michael W. “The Text of P46: Evidence of the Earliest ‘Commentary’ on Romans?” et al. New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World. Boston: Brill, 2006.

Hoskier, H. C. A Commentary on the Various Readings in the Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Chester Beatty Papyrus P46 (circa 200 A.D.). London: Bernard Quaritch, 1938.

Kenyon, Frederic G. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, Fasciculus I. London: Emery Walker, 1933.

Kenyon, Frederic G. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, Fasciculus III Supplement. London: Emery Walker, 1936.

Kim, Young Kyu. “Paleographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century,” Bib 69:2 (1988): 248-257.

Nestle, E. and K. Aland et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. 1993. Repr., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Royse, James R. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. Boston: Brill, 2008.

Sanders, Henry A. A Third Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1935.

Zuntz, G. The Text of the Epistles. London: Oxford, 1953.

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 5)

This is Part 5 of a 6 Part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. Here is Part 1Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library andThe Chester Beatty Library.

APPENDIX ONE

            These charts demonstrate the inconsistencies of P46 in 2 Corinthians primarily in how it agrees and disagrees with other MSS throughout the entire epistle.

2 Corinthians 1

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a Title; 1:6b-7a, 10b, 12a, 15a1, 15bc, 16a, 192, 222 1:15a*, 15bc, 16b, 18, 19*, 20, 22*
A 1:6b-7a, 12a, 14, 15a, 15b 1:16a, 16b, 18, 20, 22
B Title; 1:10b, 10c, 11, 12a, 12b, 13, 15a, 16a, 19, 22 1:14, 15b, 16b, 18, 20
C 1:6b-7a, 10b, 12a, 14, 15a, 16a 1:16b, 18, 20, 22*
D 1:10c*, 14, 15b, 16b, 18*, 19, 20*, 22 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 10c1+2, 12a, 12b, 13, 15a, 16a, 17, 202
F 1:15b, 16b, 19, 22 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 10c, 12a, 12b, 13, 14, 15a, 16a, 17, 18, 20
G 1:15b, 16b, 19, 22 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 10c, 12a, 12b, 13, 14, 15a, 16a, 17, 18, 20
P 1:6b-7a, 10b, 11, 12a, 15a 1:15b, 16a, 16b, 18, 20, 22
Y 1:6b-7a, 12a, 14, 16a, 19 1:16b, 18, 20
33 1:10b, 12a, 12b, 15a, 16a 1:14, 16b, 18, 20
1739 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10c, 12b, 15a, 16a, 17, 19, 22 1:10b, 14, 16b, 18, 20
1881 1:6b-7a, 10c, 12a, 15a, 16a, 19, 22 1:14, 16b, 18, 20
M 1:14, 15b, 16a, 19, 22 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 10c, 12a, 12b, 13, 15a, 16b, 17, 18, 20
Old Latin 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 12a, 12b, 17, 19, 20b 1:12a, 14, 16ab+r, 20
Vulgate 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 11, 12b, 17, 19, 22 1:12a, 14
Syriac 1:6b-7a, 10a, 12b, 15a, 19 1:10b, 10c, 12b, 13, 14, 20
Coptic 1:6b-7a, 10b, 12a, 15b 1:14, 20
Ambrosiaster 1:6b-7a, 10a, 14, 22 1:10b, 10c, 12b, 20
Didache 1:10c, 12a 1:10b
Origen 1:10a, 12a, 17 1:10b, 10c

 

2 Corinthians 2

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 2:3a, 7 2:1, 9, 17
A Nothing 2:1, 3a, 7, 9, 17
B 2:1, 3a 2:7, 9, 17
C 2:7 2:1, 3a, 9, 17
D 2:17 2:1, 3a, 7, 9
F 2:17 2:1, 3a, 7, 9
G 2:17 2:1, 3a, 7, 9
P 2:3a Nothing
Y 2:3a, 7 2:1, 9, 17
33 2:1 2:3a, 7, 9, 17
1739 2:1, 3a, 7 2:9, 17
1881 2:1 2:3a, 7, 9, 17
M 2:7 2:1, 3a, 9, 17
Old Latin 2:1 (r), 7 (r) 2:1, 3, 9, 17
Vulgate 2:3a 2:1, 7, 9, 17
Syriac 2:1 (h), 17 2:1 (p), 3, 9
Coptic Nothing 2:9 (bo), 17
Ambrosiaster 2:3a 2:1, 17
Didache Nothing 2:17
Irenaeus Nothing 2:17

 

2 Corinthians 3

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 6*, 9 3:5a, 18
A 3:3a, 3b, 9 3:1, 2, 5a, 6c, 18
B 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 5a, 6* 3:5b, 9, 18
C 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 9 3:5a, 6c, 18
D 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 9* 3:5a, 6c, 92, 18
F 3:1, 2, 3a, 6*, 9 3:3b, 5a, 5b, 18
G 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 6*, 9 3:5a, 5b, 18
P 3:2, 3a, 3b, 6* 3:5a, 18
Y 3:2, 3a, 6*, 9 3:1, 3b, 5a, 18
33 3:3a, 3b, 6*, 9 3:1, 2, 5a, 18
1739 3:1, 2, 3a, 6*, 9 3:3b, 5a, 18
1881 3:1, 3a, 3b 3:2, 5a, 6c, 9, 18
M 3:2, 3a, 3b 3:1, 6c, 9, 18
Old Latin 3:2, 3af, 9b 3:3b, 9f
Vulgate 3:2, 3a, 18 3:3b, 9
Syriac 3:1, 2, 3a, 9 3:3bp,
Coptic 3:1bo, 2, 3b, 3a, 6* 3:9bo,
Ambrosiaster 3:9 Nothing
Eusebius Nothing 3:3b
Irenaeus Nothing 3:3b
Speculum 3:18 Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 4

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 4:1, 4, 5a, 5b*, 6b, 14b*, 16 4:5b1, 6a, 10, 13, 14a, 14b2
A 4:1, 5a, 5bc, 10 4:4, 5b*vid, 6a, 6b
B 4:1, 4, 10, 13, 14a, 14b, 16 4:5a, 5b, 6a, 6b
C 4:5a, 5b, 6a*, 6b, 10, 13vid, 14b 4:1, 4, 6a3, 14a, 16
D 4:1*, 5a, 6a*, 10, 13, 14b*, 16* 4:12, 4, 5b, 6a2, 6b, 14a, 14b1, 162
F 4:1, 4, 5a, 6a, 10, 11, 14b, 16 4:5b, 6b, 13, 14a
G 4:1, 4, 5a, 6a, 10, 11, 14b, 16 4:5b, 6b, 13, 14a
P 4:5a, 14b Nothing
Y 4:4, 6b, 13 4:1, 5a, 5b, 6a, 14a, 14b, 16
33 4:1, 5b, 10, 13, 14a, 14b 4:4, 5a, 6a, 6b, 16
1739 4:4, 5b, 6bc, 13, 14a, 14b 4:1, 5a, 6a, 6b*, 10, 16
1881 4:4, 5b, 13, 14b 4:1, 5a, 6a, 6b, 10, 14a, 16
M 4:4, 6b, 10, 13 4:1, 5a, 5b, 6a, 14a, 14b, 16
Old Latin 4:5a, 5b, 6ab+r, 6bt, 11b, 13, 14ar, 14b 4:5ab, 5bt+b, 6at, 6b, 10r+t, 14ab
Vulgate 4:5a, 6bmss, 13, 14a, 14b 4:5b, 6a, 6b, 10
Syriac 4:5ah, 6b, 11p 4:5ap, 6a, 10p, 13, 14a, 14b
Coptic 4:1, 5b, 14abo-ms, 14b, 16 4:5bbo, 6a, 10bo, 14abo
Ambrosiaster 4:5a, 10 4:5b, 6b
Eusebius 4:4 Nothing
Marcion 4:5b 4:5a
Tertullian 4:11, 14a, 14b 4:6b
Origen 4:14a 4:10
Irenaeus 4:11 Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 5

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P34 Nothing 5:20
P99 5:8, 11 Nothing
a 5:3b, 12, 17 5:3a, 8, 10a, 10b, 11, 19, 20
B 5:3a, 3b, 8, 10b, 12, 17 5:10a, 11, 19
C 5:3b, 8, 17 5:3a, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, 19, 20
D 5:3a, 3b2, 8, 10b, 17*, 20* 5:3b*+c, 10a, 11, 12, 172, 19, 202
F 5:3a, 8, 10b, 17, 20 5:3b, 10a, 11, 12, 19
G 5:3a, 8, 10b, 17, 20 5:3b, 10a, 11, 12, 19
P 5:11 5:17
Y 5:3b, 8, 10b, 11, 20 5:3a, 10a, 12, 17, 19
33 5:3a, 3b, 12 5:8, 10a, 10b, 11, 17, 19, 20
1739 5:3b, 17 5:3a, 8, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, 19, 20
1881 5:3b 5:3a, 8, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20
M 5:3b, 8, 10b 5:3a, 10a, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20
Old Latin 5:3b, 10a, 12g, 17d+e+f+g+r, 20b 5:3bf, 17b
Vulgate 5:3b, 10a, 11, 12, 17 5:17cl, 20
Syriac 5:3b, 17p 5:17h, 20
Coptic 5:3b, 17 Nothing
Ambrosiaster Nothing 5:17
Clement 5:3b, 10b, 17 Nothing
Cyprian 5:10a Nothing
Marcion Nothing 5:3b, 17
Speculum Nothing 5:3b
Tertullian Nothing 5:3b, 8, 17

 

2 Corinthians 6

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 6:4*, 9, 15a, 15b, 15c, 162 6:1, 42, 11, 16*
B 6:9, 15a, 15b 6:1, 4, 11, 15c, 16
C 6:4, 9, 11, 15a, 15b, 15c, 16 6:1
D 6:1*, 4*, 11, 15c, 162 6:12, 42, 9*, 15a, 15b, 16*
F 6:1, 4, 11, 15c, 16 6:9, 15a, 15b
G 6:1, 4, 11, 15c, 16 6:9, 15a, 15b
P 6:15a, 15b, 15c 6:4, 16
Y 6:9, 11, 15c, 16 6:1, 4, 15a, 15b
33 6:4, 9, 11, 15a, 15b 6:1, 15c, 16
1739 6:4, 9, 11, 15a, 15b, 15c 6:1, 16
1881 6:4*vid, 9, 15a, 15b, 15c 6:1, 4c, 11, 16
M 6:9, 11, 15b, 15c, 16 6:1, 4, 15a
Old Latin 6:1b, 15a, 16 6:9, 15bb+d
Vulgate 6:15a, 16 6:1, 15b
Syriac 6:16 6:1, 15a
Coptic Nothing 6:16
Ambrosiaster 6:15a, 16 6:9
Clement 6:4, 15a 6:16
Origen 6:16lat 6:16
Tertullian 6:16 6:15b

 

2 Corinthians 7

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P99 Nothing 7:10
a 7:8a, 10*, 11a*, 11b*, 142 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 102, 11a2, 12a2, 12b, 13, 14*
B 7:5a, 8b, 10, 11a, 12b 7:1, 5b, 11b, 12a, 13, 14
C 7:8a, 10, 12a, 12b, 14 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b,  11a, 11b, 13
D 7:8a, 8b*, 10, 11a, 12a 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b1, 11b, 12b, 13, 14
F 7:5a, 8a, 12a 7:1, 5b, 8b, 10, 11a, 11b, 12b, 13, 14
G 7:5a, 8a, 12a 7:1, 5b, 8b, 10, 11a, 11b, 12b, 13, 14
P 7:8a, 10, 12a, 12b 7:1, 5b, 8b, 11a, 11b, 13, 14
Y 7:8a, 11a, 12a, 12b, 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 10, 11b, 13, 14
33 7:8a, 10, 11a, 12a, 12b, 14 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 11b, 13
1739 7:8a, 11a, 12a, 12b, 14 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 10, 11b, 13
1881 7:8a, 11a, 12a, 12b 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 10, 11b, 13, 14
M 7:8a, 12a, 12b, 14 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 10, 11b, 13
Old Latin 7:8b, 11ab+r 7:12b, 14
Vulgate 7:8b 7:8bmss, 11a, 12b, 14
Syriac 7:5bp 7:8b, 11a
Coptic 7:8bsa? 7:8bbo
Ambrosiaster 7:8b 7:11a, 12a
Clement 7:10, 11a Nothing
Didache Nothing 7:10
Eusebius Nothing 7:10
Tertullian 7:5b Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 8

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P99 8:2b Nothing
a 8:2b*, 162, 19a, 19b 8:2a, 2b2, 5, 7, 14, 16*, 18*, 21
B 8:2b, 7, 18 8:2a, 5, 14, 16, 19a, 19b, 21
C 8:2b, 18 8:2a, 5, 7, 14, 16, 19a, 19b, 21
D 8:2a*, 16, 18, 19a, 19b1 8:2b, 5, 7, 14, 19b*, 21
F 8:16, 18, 19a 8:2a, 2b, 5, 7, 14, 19b, 21
G 8:16, 18, 19a 8:2a, 2b, 5, 7, 14, 19b, 21
P 8:2b 8:7, 18, 19a, 19b
Y 8:18, 19a, 19b 8:2a, 2b, 5, 7, 14, 16, 21
33 8:2b, 18, 19b 8:2a, 5, 7, 14, 16, 19a, 21
1739 8:2b, 7, 14, 18 8:2a, 5, 16, 19a, 19b, 21
1881 8:7, 14, 18, 19b* 8:2a, 2b, 5, 16, 19a, 19bc, 21
M 8:18, 19a, 19b 8:2a, 2b, 5, 7, 14, 16, 21
Old Latin 8:5f+r, 7r, 16, 19ab+e+g, 21 8:7, 19af, 19b
Vulgate 8:5mss, 16, 21 8:5, 7, 19a, 19b
Syriac 8:7p, 16, 19a, 19b, 21p 8:7h, 19ap
Coptic 8:2abo, 7sa+bo, 16bo 8:16sa, 19a, 19b
Ambrosiaster 8:7, 16, 21 8:18a, 19a, 19b
Origen 8:7lat Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 9

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 9:5a, 5b* 9:1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14*
B 9:10 9:1, 4, 5a, 5b, 11, 12, 14
C 9:4*, 5a, 14 9:1, 42, 5b, 10, 11, 12
D 9:4, 10*, 11, 14 9:1, 5a, 5b, 101, 12
F 9:4, 5b, 10, 14 9:1, 5a, 11, 12
G 9:4, 5b, 10, 14 9:1, 5a, 11, 12
P Nothing 9:4, 12
Y 9:5a, 14 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12
33 9:5a, 14 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12
1739 9:5a, 14 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12
1881 9:5a 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12, 14
M 9:5a, 14 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12
Old Latin 9:1g, 5b, 11b, 12d+g+r 9:12c+e+f+t
Vulgate 9:1mss, 5b 9:4, 12, 14ms
Syriac 9:5b 9:4, 12
Coptic 9:4sa-mss 9:4bo, 12
Ambrosiaster 9:4, 11, 12 Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 10

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 10:10a*, 12 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a2, 10b
B 10:8a, 10a, 12 10:7b, 8b, 10b
C 10:12 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a, 10b
D Nothing 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
F 10:8a 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
G 10:8a 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
P Nothing 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
Y Nothing 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
33 10:8a, 12 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b
1739 10:8a, 12 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b
1881 10:8a, 10b, 12 10:7b, 8b, 10a
M Nothing 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
Old Latin 10:8a, 10bb 10:8af+r, 8bg, 12b+d+f+g+r
Vulgate 10:8amss 10:8a, 10b, 12
Syriac Nothing 10:8a, 10b, 12
Coptic 10:10bbo 10:12
Ambrosiaster 10:10b 10:8a, 12

 

2 Corinthians 11

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P34 Nothing 11:4, 6
P99 11:28 Nothing
a 11:18*, 21, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 182, 23, 30
B 11:3, 4, 21, 23, 28, 30 11:6, 18
D 11:3, 4*, 18*,  23*+2, 28 11:42, 6, 181, 21, 231, 30
F 11:18, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 21, 23, 30
G 11:18, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 21, 23, 30
P Nothing 11:23
Y 11:3 11:4, 6, 18, 21, 23, 28, 30
33 11:3, 4, 18, 21,  23, 28 11:6, 30
1739 11:18*, 21*, 23, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 18c, 21c, 30
1881 11:18*, 21, 23, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 18c, 30
M 11:3 11:4, 6, 18, 21, 23, 28, 30
Old Latin 11:4r, 23 11:6
Vulgate 11:23 11:4, 6
Syriac Nothing 11:4, 23p
Coptic 11:4sa Nothing
Ambrosiaster 11:23 11:6
Clement 11:3 11:23
Origen Nothing 11:23

 

2 Corinthians 12

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P99 12:20avid, 20b Nothing
a 12:1b, 1c, 6b2, 7b2, 10*, 11a, 12*, 15a*, 15b2, 20a, 21* 12:1a, 3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b*, 7a, 7b*, 11b, 122, 15a2, 15b*, 16, 19a, 19b, 20b, 212
A 12:11a, 15a, 20a, 20b, 21 12:7a, 7b, 11b, 12, 15a, 15b, 16, 19a, 19b
B 12:1a, 1b, 3, 5b, 7b, 11a, 11b, 12, 15a, 15b, 20b, 21 12:1c, 5a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 10, 16, 19a, 19b, 20a
D 12:1a2, 3*, 5b*, 6b*, 7a, 11a, 15b, 16*, 20b* 12:1a*, 1b, 1c, 32, 5a, 5b2, 6a, 6b2, 7b, 10, 11b, 12, 15a, 162, 19a, 19b, 20a, 20b1, 211
F 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 11a, 12, 15a, 15b, 20b, 21 12:3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 10, 11b, 16, 19a, 19b, 20a
G 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 11a, 12, 15a, 15b, 20b, 21 12:3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 10, 11b, 16, 19a, 19b, 20a
P 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 21 12:5a, 5b, 6a, 10, 11b
Y 12:6b, 7a, 7b, 15b 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 3, 5a, 6a, 10, 11a, 11b, 12, 15a, 16, 19a, 19b, 20a, 20b, 21
33 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 5b, 11a, 12, 15a, 20a, 20b 12:3, 5a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 10, 11b, 15b, 16, 19a, 19b, 21
1739 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 5b, 7b, 11a, 12, 15b, 20a 12:3, 5a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 10, 11b, 15a, 16, 19a, 19b, 20b, 21
1881 12:1a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 12, 15b, 20a 12:1b, 1c, 3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 10, 11a, 11b, 15a, 16, 19a, 19b, 20b, 21
M 12:6b, 7a, 7b, 15b 12:1b, 1c, 3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 10, 11a, 11b, 12, 15a, 16, 19a, 20b, 20a, 21
Old Latin 12:1a, 1bf, 1c, 5a, 6bf, 7a, 11a, 12g, 15b, 19bb+d 12:1b, 3, 5b, 6bb, 7b, 11ab, 12, 15af+g+r, 19a, 20a, 20b, 21
Vulgate 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 5a, 6bcl, 7a, 11a, 15b 12:3, 5b, 6bst, 7b, 12, 15a, 19a, 20a, 20b, 21
Syriac 12:1a, 5b, 6bh, 7b, 20ap, 20bp 12:1b, 1c, 7ah, 11ap, 15a, 19a, 20ah, 20bh, 21p
Coptic 12:1asa+bo-ms, 1b, 5b, 7asa, 7b, 11a, 15a, 20abo, 20bbo-ms 12:1abo, 6b, 7abo, 19abo, 20asa+bo, 20bsa+bo
Ambrosiaster 12:6b, 7b, 19b 12:1a, 1b, 5b, 12, 15a
Cyprian 12:7b Nothing
Irenaeus 12:7alat 12:7blat

 

2 Corinthians 13 and Subscription

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 13:2a, 4a*, 13a, 13c*, sub 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13b, 13c2
A 13:2a, 13a, 13c, sub 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13b
B 13:2a, 4a, 5b, 13c, sub* 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 13a, 13b, sub1
D 13:2a*, 4a*, 4d*+c, 5b*, 13a, sub 13:2a1, 2b, 4c,  4e2, 5b1, 13b, 13c
F 13:2a, 2b, 4a, 13a, 13c, sub 13:4c, 4d, 5b, 13b
G 13:2a, 2b, 4a, 13a, 13c, sub 13:4c, 4d, 5b, 13b
P 13:4a sub
Y sub 13:2a, 2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13a, 13b, 13c
33 13:2a, 4a, 4d, 5b, 13a, 13c, sub 13:2b, 4c, 13b
1739 13:2a, 4a, 13a, 13c 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13b, sub
1881 13:2a, 13c 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13a, 13b, sub
M 13:13a 13:2a, 2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13b, 13c, sub
Old Latin 13:2a 13:4er, 13c
Vulgate 13:2a 13:13c
Syriac Nothing 13:2a, 13c
Coptic 13:4a, 13csa 13:2asa+bo, 13cbo
Ambrosiaster 13:13c Nothing
Clement 13:5b Nothing
Eusebius 13:4a Nothing

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 4)

This is Part 4 of a 6 Part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. Here is Part 1Part 2, and Part 3. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library andThe Chester Beatty Library.

CONCLUSION

            In conclusion, from the evidence put forward above, one can clearly observe that P46 is inconsistent and fickle at many levels. While it is somewhat stable in providing the original text of 2 Corinthians according to the NU, it is quite unstable (1) in agreeing with other extant MSS of 2 Corinthians and (2) in leaning towards one specific textual family. If P46 was said to have any tendencies toward certain MSS in 2 Corinthians, they would surely be the Latin type MSS of the OL, Vg., and Ambrosiaster which all have high percentages of agreement with P46 throughout both the singular readings and 2 Corinthians as a whole. Overall, I conclude that P46 in 2 Corinthians (1) maintains an older reading of Paul in the singular readings that was contained mostly within the Latin Church which was later added to by scribes, (2) tends to preserve the original reading 50% of the time or higher according to the NU, (3) tends to alter grammar and inflection, omit words, and substitute words, (4) tends to disagree with most of the other NT MSS among the variants, and (5) tends to have no preference toward any textual family. In other words, the overwhelming evidence leads one to conclude that the only lasting tendency that P46 has in 2 Corinthians is inconsistency.

POSTSCRIPT

            So what does all this reveal about early Christianity? First and foremost, I think that the inconsistency and lack of alignment with a textual family shows that P46 is a conduit for hearing the earliest rendition of Paul in 2 Corinthians, and this is especially pertinent if one holds to an early dating of P46 to ca. 80 A.D. as Young Kyu Kim proposed in his article Paleographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century in 1988. Second, as pertains to the MSS with the highest percentage of agreement with P46 (i.e. Copt. and OL), this further corroborates the claim that early Christianity was missional focused, that is, early Christians tried to spread Christianity by translating their sacred texts into other important languages such as Coptic and Latin. Thirdly, as pertains to the Latin type MSS that agree with P46 among the singular readings, this may reveal an important facet of the transmission history of 2 Corinthians, namely, since the Corinth that Paul evangelized and wrote to was the rebuilt Roman city of Corinth – not the Greek Corinth – it is possible that when the original 2 Corinthians was received in Corinth that the church shortly thereafter translated it into Latin due to Roman influence on the city. Lastly, while P46 was discovered in Fayum, Egypt, that does not necessarily mean that it was produced or even primarily used in that region throughout its history. But regardless of whether it was in fact either used and/or produced in Egypt, seeing that P46 has the highest percentage agreement with the Coptic MSS, this might indicate that early Egyptian Christianity used P46 and/or other early non-extant MSS of its similar type and nature to produce their Coptic translations of 2 Corinthians. In these ways, then, Chester Beatty Papyrus II sheds some light on early Christianity, and perhaps even that in Egypt.

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 3)

This is Part 3 of a 6 Part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. Here is Part 1 and Part 2. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library andThe Chester Beatty Library.

A COMPARISON OF SUMMARIES

            At this point, I will now move forward to compare my summary with Fredrick G. Kenyon’s summary as illustrated in the editio princeps. To begin, here is a chart of his summary of P46 in 2 Corinthians:[1]

  With papyrus Against
a 250 76
A 90 49
B 253 73
C 149 69
D 167 157
F 162 162
G 162 162
TR 165 161
Singular 87
Errors 32

Now while a quick glance at Kenyon’s chart would immediately seem to disregard the above study due to the fact that his suggests that the majority of other MSS agree with P46 50% of the time or more, 3 things must be noted about our differences in approach. First, Kenyon’s chart is almost wholly dependent upon Tischendorf’s critical apparatus, while mine is based upon the most recent scholarly apparati of the NA27 and the UBS4.[2] Secondly, Kenyon does not include variants that are spelling differences, while I do. Thirdly, whereas he examines every variant from Tischendorf’s critical apparatus, I have researched most of the variants and the most significant variants from the NU apparati. Thus, due to our different approaches, one should expect at least some differences in our conclusions.[3] Here is a chart that compares our different summaries:

Kenyon-Christian Comparison

Now the most obvious difference is that not one MS disagrees with P46 more often than not according to Kenyon, that is, none agree less than 50% of the time. In other words, all of the major MSS according to Kenyon agree with P46 50% of the time or higher. My primary contention with this is that Kenyon here does not show his work and did not later publish anything showing evidence for these numbers. One strength of my study is that I avoid this pitfall by providing all of my work in chart form in appendices which I will show at the end of this presentation.

Another very important and different conclusion that we come to is whether or not P46 tends to align with the Alexandrian text type. According to Kenyon, P46 has a strong affinity for the Alexandrian textual family. My study however shows that while P46 is somewhat less Western than Alexandrian, it more so has no affinity for any text type.

In addition, I think there are multiple problems with Kenyon’s approach. First and foremost, his is based upon old scholarship, namely, Tischendorf. My study however is based upon the most recent scholarship, namely, the NU critical apparati. Even though Tischendorf produced 8 magnificent texts and apparati of the Greek NT in his lifetime, he nonetheless did this work by himself. Likewise, Kenyon collated P46 to Tischendorf’s apparatus by himself. However, the NA27 and UBS4 which I am using have been organized by the top scholars in the field via a committee. This in my opinion indicates that I have worked with more superior and more accurate apparati than Kenyon.

Secondly, Kenyon draws from a smaller pool of MSS, that is, he only observes the major codices and the Majority text. I however incorporate those MSS with several miniscule MSS, multiple versions, and the church fathers.

Thirdly, to be fair, Kenyon observes more variants than I do here. While I have examined 219 total variants (139 variants + 80 singular readings), Kenyon looked at approximately 413 (ca. 326 variants + 87 singular readings), almost double the amount of mine. While this may bolster Kenyon’s study, a statistical principle must be noted: those working with statistics always use sample populations. Here, while Kenyon’s sample population is larger than mine, it is nonetheless still a sample population. Thus, the conclusion that Kenyon’s work is better because it observes a larger sample population is unwarranted. The most important criteria then I would suggest are the quality of apparati used and the breadth of MSS observed.

Overall, it seems that Kenyon and I come to different conclusions due to different approaches, different apparati, different breadths of MSS observed, and different number of observed variants, but I hope I have demonstrated how my present study outweighs Kenyon’s in these regards.



[1] Kenyon, Pauline Epistles, xvi.

 

[2] Kenyon, Pauline Epistles, xv.

 

[3] Note that Henry A. Sander’s chart cannot be utilized here due the fact that he combines the numbers for 1 and 2 Corinthians into one section. See Sanders 24-25 for more details.

 

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 2)

This is Part 2 of a 6 Part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. Here is Part 1. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library andThe Chester Beatty Library.

SUMMARY OF P46 TENDENCIES IN 2 CORINTHIANS

            Now that I have examined all the singular readings, at this juncture, I will summarize the tendencies of P46 throughout 2 Corinthians noting (1) its propensity to preserve the original text according to the NU, (2) the types of variants it prefers, and (3) its tendencies to agree and disagree with other MSS.

I. Summary of Preserving the Original

            First, as regards P46 preserving the original reading of 2 Corinthians, the NU apparati deem P46 to be original among the variants 76 times out of the 139 variants observed here. This means that according to the NU 54.7% of the time P46 preserves the original reading of 2 Corinthians among the variants. Here is a chart demonstrating this:

Chapter

# of NU Original

# of Variants

Percentage

2 Cor 1

7

18

38.9%

2 Cor 2

3

5

60%

2 Cor 3

6

10

60%

2 Cor 4

8

12

75%

2 Cor 5

2

10

20%

2 Cor 6

6

8

75%

2 Cor 7

6

12

50%

2 Cor 8

6

10

60%

2 Cor 9

4

8

50%

2 Cor 10

2

6

33.3%

2 Cor 11

6

8

75%

2 Cor 12

14

22

63.6%

2 Cor 13

6

10

60%

Total

Total

Total

76

139

54.7%

II. Summary of Types of Variants

            Second, in regard to the types of variants, P46 changes the original text 63 times among the variants of 2 Corinthians according to the NU. Of these, it tends to have three significant types of recurring variants. First, it changes the grammar and inflection most frequently, 24 times to be exact. Next, it omits words 18 times. Lastly, it substitutes words 12 times. Furthermore, P46 has little propensity to omit phrases, make additions, and alter word order. Here is a chart summarizing the types of variants P46 makes in 2 Corinthians:

Type of Variant

Changes Original

Preserves Original

Grammar/Inflection

24

31

Omission: Word

18

4

Word Substitute

12

12

Omission: Phrase

4

4

Addition

3

13

Word Order

2

12

Total

Total

63

76

III. Summary of Agreement with Other Manuscripts

Thirdly, with regard to its agreements and disagreements with other MSS, on the one hand, there are 4 MSS that tend to agree with P46 more often than not, that is, they agree with it 50% of the time or more. On the other hand, there are 14 MSS that tend to disagree with P46 more often than not, that is, they agree with it less than 50% of the time. Those MSS which agree 50% of the time or higher are ranked in this order: Coptic, OL, B, and Ambrosiaster. The MSS which agree less than 50% of the time are ranked in this order: Vulgate, 33, C, 1739, G, A, a, P, Syriac, F, D, 1881, Y, and Majority. Overall, one point is clear: most of the 18 MSS recorded here (77.8%) in this study disagree with P46 far more often than they agree among the variants. Here is a chart that summarizes the agreements, disagreements, and the percentage of agreement that P46 has with other MSS in 2 Corinthians:[1]

Manuscript

Agrees with P46

Disagrees with P46

% of Agreement

a  01

65

87

42.8 %

A

21

28

42.9 %

B

70

65

51.9%

C

43

50

46.2 %

D

68

99

40.7 %

F

56

81

40.9 %

G

57

80

44.9 %

P

26

36

41.9 %

Y 044

38

85

30.9 %

33

59

68

46.5 %

1739

61

74

45.2 %

1881

46

85

35.1 %

Majority

36

94

27.7 %

Old Latin

67

58

53.6 %

Vulgate

41

43

48.8 %

Syriac

30

42

41.7 %

Coptic

36

28

56.3 %

Ambrosiaster

23

23

50 %

Here is another chart that orders this data from the highest percentage agreements to least from top to bottom:

Percentage of Agreement with P46

Manuscript

% with P46

Agrees More Than 50% of the Time

Coptic

56.30%

Old Latin

53.60%

B

51.90%

Ambrosiaster

50.00%

Agrees Less Than 50% of the Time

Vulgate

48.80%

33

46.50%

C

46.20%

1739

45.20%

G

44.90%

A

42.90%

O1

42.80%

P

41.90%

Syriac

41.70%

F

40.90%

D

40.70%

1881

35.10%

O44

30.90%

Majority

27.70%

Now as this relates to textual families, P46 is all over the map. Of the 4 MSS that agree with it most often, there are 2 from the Alexandrian witness, more specifically “proto-Alexandrian,” namely, the Copt. and B.[2] In contrast, there are 2 MSS from the Western type, namely, the OL and Ambrosiaster. So already with those MSS that agree 50% of the time or more, P46 does not consistently align with a certain textual family. Now among the 14 MSS that disagree with P46 most often, 1 is proto-Alexandrian, namely, 1739, and 5 are Alexandrian, namely, 33, C, A, a, and Y. In contrast, 7 are Western, namely, Vg., G, Syr., F, D, 1881, and Majority. While there is certainly more of a stronger dislike of the Western type among those MSS that disagree, all of this data indicates that P46 does not tend to prefer one textual family over the other, but rather would suggest that P46 is inconsistent concerning its agreement with the various textual families.



                [1] Note that for this chart I have arbitrarily selected a prerequisite limit of 45 variants or more. This means that only those MSS which have 45 variants or more are on the chart above. If it were any less, then the data would be skewed. As such, the following is a list of the MSS which I examined in this study having less than 45 variants and thus they are excluded from the chart: P34 (0% – 0agr/3dis), P99 (85.7% – 6agr/1dis), Clement (75% – 9agr/3dis), Cyprian (100% – 2agr/0dis), Didache (40% – 2agr/3dis), Eusebius (50% – 2agr/2dis), Irenaus (40% – 2agr/3dis), Marcion (25% – 1agr/3dis), Origen (54.5% – 6agr/5dis), Speculum (50% – 1agr/1dis), and Tertullian (50% – 5agr/5dis). I was not as confident in these due to the fact that they lack the sufficient amount of data for the purpose of this comparative table.

            [2] G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (London: Oxford, 1953), 156. Zuntz believes this “proto-Alexandrian” group is composed of P46, B, 1739, Sahidic (Coptic), Bohairic (Coptic), Clement of Alexandria, and  Origen.

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 1)

This is a 6 part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library and The Chester Beatty Library.

INTRODUCTION

             A brief review of the published literature on Chester Beatty Papyrus II – more commonly known to biblical scholars as P46 – reveals that little work has been written on this important witness to the Pauline Corpus. While some attention has been given to the text of Romans, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, the Pastorals, paleographical dating, and the manuscript as a whole, not a single iota has been written upon the textual tendencies of P46 in 2 Corinthians.[1] Thus, in this paper, I have done a thorough examination of P46 in 2 Corinthians including its singular readings and found that, contra Fredrick G. Kenyon who published its editio princeps, P46 does not tend to be in alignment with the Alexandrian witness, but rather is wholly inconsistent (1) in preferring a particular textual family and (2) in agreeing with other extant MSS of 2 Corinthians among the variants. Overall, I argue that the only lasting tendency of P46 is inconsistency.

SCOPE AND LIMITS

            Now before I begin, I must note the scope and limits of this study. With regard to scope, I will begin by assessing all 80 singular readings of P46 in 2 Corinthians. Next, I will summarize my examination of the textual variants I observed of P46 in 2 Corinthians. Finally, I will compare and contrast all this with Kenyon’s summary in the editio princeps. With regard to the limits, I will give little attention to secondary sources due to the fact that the purpose of this study is to provide primary research, though the other reason as already stated is that there is no secondary literature specifically on 2 Corinthians in P46. Also, I am limiting the textual foundation of this study to the latest and greatest Greek texts and critical apparati of the NA27 and UBS4 which I will call the NU text henceforth.[2] In addition, I will not be examining every variant within these apparati, but rather the majority of them and the most significant of them, 219 variants to be exact.[3] Lastly, I am adopting James Royse’s definition of “singular reading,” that is, when only one (or possibly two – this would be called “sub-singular”) Greek manuscript (not other versions such as those in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.) has a particular reading or variant.

TENDENCIES IN THE SINGULAR READINGS OF P46

To begin, I will examine the 80 singular readings of P46 by first looking at the recurring types of variants and second by noting which MSS tend to agree with P46 in its singularity.

I. Types of Variants

With regard to the types of singular reading variants, almost half of them are omissions, 34 to be exact. Of these omissions, 23 are of single words, while 11 are of phrases. The next most recurring variant is changes in grammar and inflection which occur 21 times, over a quarter of the singular readings. Furthermore, there are 11 additions from the scribe, along with 8 changes in word order, and 6 word substitutions. Here is a chart summarizing these variants:

TYPE OF VARIANT

VERSES

#

Omission: Single Words 1:5a, 5b, 9, 11; 2:14; 3:1b, 7, 18; 4:4, 10, 18; 5:8; 6:18; 7:4; 8:2, 22; 9:13; 10:12, 18; 11:9; 12:6; 13:7, 13. 23
Omission: Phrases 1:6, 13; 4:7; 5:14; 8:19a, 19b; 11:6, 12, 25, 27; 12:19b.

11

Grammar/Inflection Change 1:1; 4:8; 5:8; 7:1a, 1b, 5, 7, 8a, 8b, 11; 8:1, 14; 9:1, 6, 12; 10:7a, 7b, 8; 12:6, 11; 13:4.

21

Additions 2:14; 3:11, 18; 4:11; 6:8, 16; 9:2; 12:5, 19a; 13:3, 11.

11

Word Order Change 1:2, 19; 5:1, 6; 7:3; 8:7; 10:14; 13:10.

8

Word Substitution 3:1a; 4:11; 5:19; 7:1; 8:21; 10:12.

6

II. Agreement with Other Manuscripts

            With regard to agreement with other MSS in its singular readings, the OL MSS align with P46 most frequently, 5 times to be exact. Next, the Vg. agrees with P46 4 times. Then, the church father Ambrosiaster aligns with it thrice, while the Syr. Peshitta and the miniscule 1900 agree with it twice. All of the other MSS that agree in the singular readings occur once and are as follows: B, Y, 049, 33, 1720, 1319, Copt., Eth., Augustine, Cyprian, Speculum, and Tertullian. Here is a chart summarizing these agreements with P46 in singularity:

AGREEMENT WITH MSS

VERSES

#

Old Latin 7:8a; 8:21; 9:12; 12:5, 19b

5

Vulgate 3:18a; 7:8a; 8:21; 12:5

4

Ambrosiaster 8:21; 9:12; 12:19b

3

1900 1:13; 5:14

2

Peshitta 7:5; 8:21

2

B03 1:13

1

Y044 5:14

1

049 5:14

1

33 8:19b

1

1319 8:19b

1

1720 8:19a

1

Coptic 7:8a

1

Ethiopic 9:12

1

Augustine 9:12

1

Cyprian 9:12

1

Speculum 3:18a

1

Tertullian 7:5

1

III. Conclusions from Singular Readings

            Overall, there are two possible conclusions that can be drawn from all this concerning the tendencies of P46 among the singular readings. First, with regard to the types of variants, P46 tends to omit the most, while also tending frequently to change the grammar and inflection of words in 2 Corinthians. Since scribes are more likely to add to their Vorlage rather than to omit, it is quite noteworthy that the scribe of P46 most often omits here. Seeing that P46 is the oldest extant MS of Paul’s epistles, perhaps its singular reading omissions indicate a preservation of an earlier reading of Paul, one that was later added to by scribes.

Secondly, with regard to its agreement with other MSS, P46 tends to be in alignment with the Latin type MSS in its singular readings; from the OL to the Vg., from Ambrosiaster to Tertullian and Cyprian, and from Augustine to Speculum. In light of all this, we can perhaps therefore infer that P46 maintains an older reading of Paul in the singular readings of 2 Corinthians, a reading that was contained mostly within the Latin Church which was later added to by scribes.



                [1] Much of discussion is centered around either the dating of P46 or whether or not the pastorals were included. For work on Romans see Michael W. Holmes, “The Text of P46: Evidence of the Earliest ‘Commentary’ on Romans?” et al. New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World (Boston: Brill, 2006). For work on Hebrews see H. C. Hoskier, A Commentary on the Various Readings in the Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Chester Beatty Papyrus P46 (circa 200 A.D.) (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1938) and G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (London: Oxford, 1953). For work on 1 Corinthians see Zuntz. For work on Galatians see Howard Eshbaugh, “Textual Variants and Theology: A Study of the Galatians Text of Papyrus 46” JSNT 3 (1979): 60-72. For work concerning the inclusion of the Pastorals see Jeremy Duff, “P46 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?” NTS 44 (Cambridge: Cambridge University,1998), 578-590. For work concerning the dating of P46 see Young Kyu Kim, “Paleographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century,” Bib 69:2 (1988): 248-257.

 

[2] I will henceforth refer to this base text as the “NU.”

 

[3] See Appendix II for a list of the variants examined in this study.