Name: P⁵ (P. Oxy. 208 + 1781)
Contents: John 1:23–31, 33–40; 16:14–30; 20:11–17, 19–20, 22–25
Date: 225 C.E.
Provenance (Origin): Oxyrhynchus, Egypt
Current Housing Location: London, England: British Library (inv. 782, 2484)
Bibliography: Grenfell and Hunt, Oxy. Pap., 2:1–8, no. 208, and 15:8–12, no. 1781.
Physical features:   two leaves; originally 13 cm x 25 cm; 27 lines per page; documentary hand.
Textual character: Western text-type; labeled “normal” by the Alands; slight affinity with Codex Sinaiticus
Hand: Documentary hand, meaning a person who was trained in preparing documents copied it.

Initially, P5 was discovered by Grenfell and Hunt at the end of the 19^th century in two separate portions at Oxyrhynchus. The first portion that was discovered contains John 1:23–31, 33–40 on one page (front and back), as well as John 20:11–17, 19–20, 22–25 on another page (front and back). This was likely from the first and last sheets of a manuscript, which contained only John’s Gospel. Comfort informs us that this “portion was published in volume 2 of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri in 1899 and designated P. Oxy. 208. The second portion, containing John 16:14–30, was not published until 1922, appearing in volume 15 of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri and labeled P. Oxy. 1781.”[1]

After their initial examination of the first portion, Grenfell and Hunt said, “The text is a good one, and appears to have affinities with that of codex Sinaiticus, with which the papyrus agrees in several readings not found elsewhere.” When looking at P⁵, we find agreement with א over against B in such relevant passages as John 1:34; 16:22, 27-28. However, after inspecting the second portion, they came to conclude that there is a likeness between P⁵ and א; however, it is less distinct than initially thought. Grenfell and Hunt set a date for P⁵ to a period between 200 to 300 C.E., which was based on the belief at the time that the codex did not exist before the third century. Grenfell and Hunt said, “The handwriting is a round, upright uncial of medium size, better formed than that of the St. Matthew fragment [P¹], but, like it, of an informal, semi-literary type.” In the opinion of Comfort and Barrett, “P⁵ should be dated to the early third century.”

Description

The manuscript is a fragment of three leaves, written in one column per page, 27 lines per page. The surviving text of John are verses 1:23-31.33-40; 16:14-30; 20:11-17.19-20.22-25.

It was written in a documentary hand, in a round, upright uncial of medium size. It uses the nomina sacra with abbreviations (    ), though not for ανθρωπος. There is a tendency to brevity, especially in omitting unnecessary pronouns and conjunctions.[2] Schofield said, “The tendency to brevity, especially in omitting unnecessary pronouns, conjunctions, etc., is an outstanding feature of the fragment.” P⁵ is a comparatively accurate text demonstrating a reasonable amount of error and peculiarity

Scribes and Correctors

• In John 1:38 “οι δε” was added superlinearly; αυ was deleted by dots above the letters.
• In John 16:19 “ο” was added superlinearly.
• In John 16:29, αυτω was added superlinearly.
• In John 20:19, και was added superlinearly.

Textual Character

In John 1:34 it reads ὁ ἐκλεκτός [ho eklektos; the chosen] together with the manuscripts {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}P¹⁰⁶, א, b, e, ff², syr^{c, s}.

In John 16:17 at line 7 of the recto of the second fragment, there appears to be extra space which would require some additional material.

In John 16:20, λυπηθησεσθε [lupethesesthe; sorrowful] originally read λουπηθησεσθε [loupethesesthe], to which the scribe corrected to λυπηθησεσθε [lupethesesthe]. In 16:21, λυπην [lupen; grief, sorrow, pain] originally read λοιπην [loipen], to which the scribe corrected to λυπην [lupen]. In 16:27, it singularly omits εγω [ego; I]. In 20:19 the scribe originally omitted και [kai; and], but then added it superlinearly later on.

At line 19 of the third folio of the recto (John 20:16), the missing fragment is difficult for a reconstruction. Grenfell & Hunt remarked that there is no space for the ordinary reading ο λεγεται διδασκαλε [ho leyetai didaskale; which is said teacher] because a line should have 34 letters, which is too long. Grenfell & Hunt rejected another possible reading κε διδασκαλε [ke didaskale], which is found in Codex Bezae (possible conflation), and proposed κε alone, because Domine is found in Codex Vercellensis and Codex Usserianus I, but in the reconstructed text of the manuscript they did not decide to include this proposed variant to the text:

 ἀρῶ.shall lift up. 16 [λέγειIs saying αὐτῇto her ι̅η̅ς̅ Jesus Μαριάμ.Mary. στραφεῖ[σαHaving turned ἐκείνηthat (one) λέγειis saying αὐτῷto him ᾿Εβραϊστίin Hebrew Ῥαββ[ουνίRabboni ὃwhich λέγεταιis being said Διδάσκαλε.Teacher.  17 λέγειIs saying αὐτῇto her  ι̅η̅ς̅Jesus

 ἀρῶ.shall lift up. 16 [λέγειIs saying αὐτῇto her ι̅η̅ς̅ Jesus Μαριάμ.Mary. στραφεῖ[σαHaving turned ἐκείνηthat (one) λέγειis saying αὐτῷto him ᾿Εβραϊστίin Hebrew Ῥαββ[ουνίRabboni ………….  17 λέγειIs saying αὐτῇto her  ι̅η̅ς̅Jesus

[] = Indicates conjectural reconstruction of the beginning or ending of a manuscript, or, within the transcriptions, letters or words most likely to have been in the original manuscript.[3]

All the editors agree that the space is insufficient for ο λεγεται διδασκαλε (John 20,16) but κε alone is too short, and no Greek manuscript supports it. Elliott & Parker have suggested ο λεγεται κε.[4] It was supported by Peter Head.[5] Comfort proposed κε μου [ke mou] though no known Greek manuscript supports this reading.[6] It is close for κεδιδασκαλε of Codex Bezae and Old-Latin Magister Domine or Domine.

The Greek text of this codex is representative of the Western text-type. Aland ascribed it as a “Normal text,” and placed it in Category I.[7] It stays in close agreement with Codex Sinaiticus against Codex Vaticanus (e.g. John 1:27.34; 16:22.27.28; 20:25). “This agreement is unfortunately obscured by mutilation.”[8]  It was examined by Grenfell, Hunt, Wessely,[9] Schofield, Comfort, and Barrett. – Wikipedia

You May Also Enjoy

Why Would the Holy Spirit Miraculously Inspire 66 Fully Inerrant Texts, and Then Allow Human Imperfection into the Copies?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS

[1] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 73–74.

[2] B. P. Grenfell & A. S. Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri II, (London, 1899).

[3] B. P. Grenfell & A. S. Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri II, (London, 1899), p. 5.

[4] Elliott & Parker, The New Testament in Greek IV. The Gospel according to St. John, volume 1, The Papyri (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 34.

[5] Peter M. Head, The Habits of New Testament Copyists Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John, Biblica 85 (2004), 405.

[6] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 77.

[7] Aland, Kurt; Aland, Barbara (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Erroll F. Rhodes (trans.). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 96.

[8] B. P. Grenfell & A. S. Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri II, (London, 1899), p. 2.

[9] Karl Wessely, Les plus anciens monuments du christianisme, PO 4/2 (1907), pp. 145–148.