25 Comments

New Early Fragment of Romans

At the Society of Biblical Literature’s annual conference in Chicago last week (17–20 Nov 2012), Grant Edwards and Nick Zola presented papers on a new papyrus fragment from Romans. They have dated it to the (early) third century, which makes this perhaps only the fifth manuscript of Romans prior to the fourth (though a couple of others are usually thought to also be from the third century). This manuscript is part of the Green Collection (inventory #425). It will be published in the first volume of a new series by the Dutch academic publishing house, E. J. Brill. The series, edited by Dirk Obbink and Jerry Pattengale, is called the Green Scholars Initiative: Papyrus Series. Volume one is edited by Jeff Fish of Baylor University.

The text of the fragment is from Rom 9.18–21 and small portions of Rom 10. Edwards presented information about the paleography and provenance of the fragment, while Zola presented his findings on the textual affinities of the papyrus.

The papyrus was written on a codex rather than a roll, as is customary for even the oldest Christian documents. What these two scholars could determine is that the original size of each leaf of this papyrus would have been a little larger than that of P66—18 cm x 16 cm for this fragment compared to 16.2 cm x 14.2 cm for P66.

The dating of the manuscript was done rather prudently by comparing it to fixed-date manuscripts. Paleographically, the fragment was found to be close to POxy 1016 (a mid-third century papyrus), POxy 2703 (late second/early third), and POxy 2341 (208 CE).

Regarding the specific text, among early papyri of the corpus Paulinum, only P46 covers the same passage. But because of the lacunose state of P46, sixteen letters of text that are missing from the Beatty papyrus are found in the Green papyrus. Zola selected four textual problems for our consideration (are these all or does the fragment read for others?). In all four, it agrees with other manuscripts, chiefly Alexandrian. The certain readings all agree with the text of NA28. In the gaps, reconstructions were necessary and there Green 425 agrees with the main Alexandrian witnesses where they are united, with a portion of them when they split.

In 9.19, it has μοι ουν, in agreement with the Alexandrians, instead of ουν μοι found in the Western and Byzantine witnesses. The second ουν of v. 19 is apparently omitted in this fragment, in agreement with א A 1739 Byz, against P46 B D F G. In 9.20 Green 425 apparently omitted μενουνγε, agreeing with P46 D F G. In 10.1 the fragment agrees with the Alexandrian and Western witnesses in reading αυτων instead of the Byzantine reading, του Ισραηλ.

Edwards and Zola are to be thanked for making a fine presentation on the data of this new find. In keeping with other early papyri, its readings are no surprise: largely Alexandrian, with some Western strains also seen.

As an addendum, you can see images of this fragment (upside down!) on CNN in an interview that Steve Green did regarding its discovery which was made earlier this year: http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/01/18/nr-hobby-lobby-religious-artifacts.cnn

 

About these ads

25 comments on “New Early Fragment of Romans

  1. Very cool! I’m always amazed at the precision we have from the wealth of biblical texts available!

  2. Thanks for the update and for keeping the text before us.

  3. [...] New Early Fragment of Romans « Daniel B. Wallace. [...]

  4. Daniel, you mentioned Edwards and Zola presented information on the provenance of the Romans fragment. Any details?
    <
    Matthew

  5. [...] Dan Wallace digests the SBL meeting discussion of the recently-announced Romans fragment in the Green collection. [...]

  6. [...] Wallace (no relationship to me, except that all us Wallace’s claim to descend from William) posted some great news today about an early fragment of the Book of Romans that was recently discovered. This fragment dates to [...]

  7. [...] Wallace (no relationship to me, except that all us Wallace’s claim to descend from William) posted some great news today about an early fragment of the Book of Romans that was recently discovered. This fragment dates to [...]

  8. [...] update on the Romans 9-10, from Daniel Wallace at his blog: New Early Fragment of Romans (off site [...]

  9. Daniel, Thank you for bringing this important find under our attention. I just love knowing of new manuscripts, even when they are only a few words!
    Any new info on the mentioned find of an early manuscript fragment on Mark, mentioned early this year?
    God bless,
    Herman Grobler, Pretoria, South Africa.

  10. Congrats on your work Grant and your dedication to getting this opportunity.

  11. Interesting stuff. Always love hearing you talk about about these discoveries. See you in class!

  12. Dr. Wallace,

    If Green 425 produced a singular reading, what would your take on it be?

  13. I studied under Jerry Pattengale at Azusa Pacifc. I found him to be the real deal, genuine. He left the professorship to take an Archaeology position elsewhere. Apparently he has been busy.

  14. Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word indures forever:THEOSNUSTOS.

  15. [...] Grant Edwards and Nick Zola presented a report on the fragment at the annual conference and shared that the manuscript would be published in the first volume of [...]

  16. Dan, what is the earliest date of any NT that has been found? Thanks.

    • Thomas, forgive me for answering this question you asked Dan – I suppose he is caught up in something. To my knowledge the oldest fragment we have of the New Testament is Papyrus No. 52 dated to the time of Trajan. (98-117 A.D.) Though this fragment contains only John 18:31-33 and 37-38 it is an irrevocable evidence that this gospel had in fact been written during the first century and not after 160 A.D. as some Biblical scholars and investigators had believed in the past.
      Hope this answers you question.

      God bless

      Herman Grobler

      • Herman, my understanding is that after Dan’s results are released in the Brill publication that Mark or Luke will be older than P52.

  17. Glory be to God for the Find!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,023 other followers

%d bloggers like this: